The Best Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage

Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 20th, 2007

Bigfoot

In one month, it will have been 40 years since Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had their incredible encounter with an apparently female Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967. The resulting footage is the best piece of evidence we have for a population of unknown, bipedal primates – most often known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot – that lives, allegedly, in the wilderness areas of North America.

Why do I think the encounter’s resulting footage is authentic?

Roger Patterson Film Frame Drawing Comparison

I feel it brings forth many forms of evidence:

1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.

2. There are contemporary sightings, from the 1950s, here.

3. In this specific incident, the animal was seen.

4. It was smelled.

5. It was sensed by the horses.

Roger Patterson

6. A trackway of at least ten prints was found, the tracks casted and preserved – via film and in a physical state – for others to analyze. Such examinations reveal flexible, animate feet for this cryptid, known locally as a Bigfoot (and referred to as Sasquatch farther north, in Canada).

7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.

Bob Gimlin

For me, all of the above combine into the virtual and visible vortex of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.


115 Responses to “The Best Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage”

  1. merchboi responds:

    I agree, Loren, that the footage is authentic.

  2. elsanto responds:

    Loren,

    Thanks for the post and for choosing that wonderful comparison between the original footage and the BBC re-creation more than thirty years later. Thirty years of innovative leaps in make up and special effects in the film and tv industries; and still nothing comes close to resembling the subject of the Patterson film (except, perhaps, Chewbacca — what a wookie! — some ten years later; and even with what become Industrial Light and Magic behind him, Chewie still moves like a human). That alone screams volumes.

    Can’t say there’ve been quite as many leaps, special-effects-wise in the last 10 years, just to clarify.

  3. tothj responds:

    After viewing photos and video of this film for over 35 years. I still get a feeling that I can’t describe and one that I don’t get veiwing any other supposed film and photographic evidence. When I couple this with the absurd attempts to recreate a film of the encounter I find this to be the best reasoning for me to beleive in the film’s authenticity.

  4. Daryl Colyer responds:

    I agree, Loren.

    I believe the film is a legitimate visual recording of an unlisted North American species, a bigfoot.

  5. DWA responds:

    I stand accused, tried and convicted of having said here, at least once, that P/G’s time has passed.

    Of course, I was wrong then and I’m wrong now.

    Each new generation of zoologists – that is, any of them that have an ounce of the questing and questioning spirit essential to the best science in them – will be challenged by this film.

    It’s not only never been debunked; no one has ever come close to explaining how it could have been faked.

    It stands unsullied on top of the hill. And sooner or later, it’s gonna gather enough snow to start rolling downhill to an answer.

  6. sasquatch responds:

    Yes, that is a nice comparison shot… I think Patty is real too; For some of the reasons Loren mentioned, but it’s mostly intuitive…I just don’t sense a human there. I also can break down many aspects of the anatomy and find it very hard to reconcile with the state of costume making of that time or a human being inside that incredibly muscular and BUSTY thing, moving in a way no-one ever thought to in a movie that I’m aware of and I own over 600 movies most of them old SCi-Fi.. Today we have Rick Baker among others who could probably do something remarkable…and maybe very close, but it would be such an expensive thing, probably costing hundreds of thousands if not a million $ that it’s pretty laughable to think Patterson and Gimlin had that type of dough back then and only came up with a few seconds of film on such an investment! It just doesn’t follow. In the late 80’s Baker did put out a fairly decent Bigfoot for Harry and the Hendersons; that made Chewy look silly, but Patty makes Harry look silly in turn. She’s real, but a lot of folks just don’t want to deal with it. End of story.

  7. mitchigan responds:

    Well said, Loren. Can’t wait for the day I can say “Told you so”.

  8. jodzilla responds:

    That BBC recreation is awful. You’d think that eleven years after Harry and the Hendersons they could come up with something a little more convincing.

  9. MadMatt32171 responds:

    I’m not sure that the comparison to the BBC “recreation” is legitimate – they did a crappy job, plain and simple, and to use that one example to say that fakery is virtually impossible is a stretch.

    The arm length on Patty is unremarkable – I think if she were standing upright the hands would fall above the knee and within a normal range for a human. I think what makes the BBC costumes arms look so short is the angle and the lousy costume – the length of the hair on the legs almost makes it look like a satyr.

    The other problem I have with Patty is her butt – in the most recent image stabilizations it looks like they don’t move in relation to the thighs; in fact there’s a crease where the right thigh actually moves under the right cheek.

    I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6’5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.

    Just my 2 cents.

  10. treeclaw responds:

    As usual interesting reading. Looks like I remain the lone dissent: I still don’t buy it. The face looks covered with a hat-like wig & beard like facial mask. There appears to be a symmetrical circling around the nose and eyes. From recollection of the actual video it walked rather akwardly in human fashion.
    Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!

  11. showme responds:

    Evaluating this film on its own, I think it looks authentic. But, after putting it in the greater context that demands that this large primate be able to make it through the harsh winters of North America, logic trumps this film.

    Tropical Asia, maybe. North America? I doubt it.

    Still, this site is great, and would love to get a great big “I told you so” from Loren someday.

  12. DWA responds:

    showme: bears live in the temperate zone, the tropics and the Arctic.

    And one species of monkey lives where the winters regularly bring snow.

    There’s no model anywhere that says an ape can’t do this.

    And this is why I keep saying: RSR! Sighting reports describe an animal very well adapted to living in places where it snows a lot.

    “Logic” doesn’t say anything about this animal. Unless one refers to the evidence, to which logic says: Quite plausible.

  13. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    Did Roger Patterson ever try drawing what he filmed? If so, I’d like to see it side-by-side with a still from the film. I tried to found out for myself, but was only able to find these three pictures (This is the source for the first and last images) I also found an interesting sculpture of his (notice how it compares the the cover of his book. Also, I believe the mask at the bottom is the “Patty mask made from a modified Tor Johnson mask” that’s mentioned in the thread).

    Also, am I the only one who thinks its odd that the horses supposedly got spooked by Patty’s scent and yet were still willing to follow its tracks soon after?

  14. mystery_man responds:

    I have discussed this topic so many times on this site before, that I will refrain too much from rehashing my views here but I do have two cents to throw in. In essence, I am an open minded skeptic on this footage. There are many compelling reasons why I feel it may be real, and there are some that lead me in the other direction as well.

    To me, one of the latter is the glaring absence of any other footage of this quality, indeed anything even approaching it. While that may seem to be in the film’s defense, I think it is odd that not a single person except Patterson would have ever captured any comparable footage, or anything even close. Now before other posters chime in and give me reasons why the lack of footage might be, I have heard most of them before and I can only say that 40 years is a very long time. In that time, nothing like this has been put forward. I find it odd that a large animal that is apparently able to be properly filmed in its native habitat once would not have been adequately filmed at least a few other times and thus leaving us with one clip of footage upon which to base countless theories and extrapolate sasquatch movement and phenotype. One clip for as long as this huge creature has been out there seems strange especially considering that groups have gone out searching just as Patterson did and turned up merely tantalizing signs of sasquatch, or nothing at all.

    This is not reason enough for me to dismiss this video by a long shot, and as I said there are lots of things that to me point to this being a real creature. I do not mean to detract from the pros of the film that Loren and others have mentioned and those are all very valid. Indeed there are possible reasons for the lack of video footage, as filming even known creatures in their natural habitat is no easy task and the fleeting factors of filming this elusive creature may just not have come together as they did on the fateful day this footage was taken. It’s not enough to make me disregard this video, but it is one of the things that makes me step back from all the praise and think.

    I am hoping that new footage of a comparable quality will turn up and allow us to cross reference the two.

  15. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Loren

    This is the best you got, 40 years on? Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd that the evidence hasn’t gotten better since the Johnson administration?

    A few comments on the aspects of the P/G film that impress Loren:

    “1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.”

    This is irrelevent; nearly any area of North American wilderness (especially in the Pacific Northwest) will have some variation of stories of a Native American wildman myth attached to it.

    “4. It was smelled.
    5. It was sensed by the horses.”

    These have never been proven, but let’s assume they are true. I’m curious to know how Loren is certain that what Patterson and Gimlin smelled was indeed a Bigfoot, and not some other foul odor that are common in wilderness areas. And how does Loren know that the horses sensed a Bigfoot? Do horses only rear in the presence of a Bigfoot? Of course not.. any number of things can cause a horse to rear or act oddly. This is hardly good supporting proof of the authenticity of the film.

    “7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.”

    Sigh. Come on… you know as well as I do that no one has “verified” that the P/G film is “authentic,” nor of a “probable unknown living primate.” Assertions are fine, but let’s stick to the facts…

  16. Grant responds:

    There’s one thing I can never really stop thinking about from the first time I read it, even though it isn’t evidence from the film itself. This is that, from the moment it was clear that great numbers of people weren’t believing it, Patterson and Gimlin had “nothing to lose, and probably a lot to GAIN,” from confessing to a hoax, and explaining how they did it. Certainly if they were after money more than anything else, this would have been the next thing to do. But of course, Patterson never did this, and Gimlin hasn’t done it in all this time. Again, this isn’t evidence in the same sense, but it seems impossible to ignore it.

  17. gridbug responds:

    There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.

    “I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”

    😀

  18. sluggo responds:

    The arms say a lot..good to see the two pics side by each…

    hard to believe to is bogus for the simple reason that the perps stood to make a fortune and no one ..did they ?

    sluggo

  19. dbard responds:

    # gridbug responds: September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.

    “I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”

    😀
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree completely with gridbug’s post.
    On an instinctual level, this creature “feels” real.

    Mr. Radford – If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.

  20. DARHOP responds:

    Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!

    And I don’t see any evidence that proves Patty is a fake, like the suit. Don’t you think that if the person that had the suit for this video, specially after all these years. They would come forward and say, look, the P/G video is a hoax. Patty is fake, here is the suit I wore. Or here is the suit that was worn.
    That would be the best evidence for proof that she is fake. But has anybody come forward with a suit ? No, because one doesn’t exist. You’d have to have some huge thigh muscle for it show through a suit like Patty’s does. Unless it was your birthday suit. Like Patty’s is. So that is one major factor why I think te video is real. Besides the fact that, well, Patty just doesn’t look like a person in a suit. Well, maybe she does. Like I said, it’s her birthday suit though.
    And I too live for the day, when I get to say, I told you so, to so many people that laugh at me about this subject!
    The closed minded Butt Heads!

  21. Sergio responds:

    MadMatt32171 wrote:

    “I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.”

    So do it. Get your camera. Get your big guy. Get your monkey suit. Make it tight. And just do it. Film it. Compare.

    Or better, let us compare.

    Words don’t mean JACK, dude.

    Knock yourself out.

    I think what you’re gonna get is gonna be downright laughable because the film is the real deal.

  22. rbhess responds:

    Loren has expressed his view here, and I respect that–he’s been working in this field for a long time and one can’t fault him for taking a stance on the Patterson bigfoot; perhaps one should, after all, say “yes” or “no” to things like this, and not stand on fences. Nevertheless, no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot bring myself to get off this particular fence and take a dive into the “yes” or “no” side. The Patterson film simply does not constitute “evidence” to me. Furthermore, I am resolute that it should not constitute evidence to anyone. It is not a physical artifact of a “bigfoot” (such as a body, or hair sample, or scat, etc.) but is, rather, mere images on celluloid–and film, as we know, CAN be faked. Yes, there are circumstances where a film of this kind could be reasonably judged authentic… but here they do not apply. What we have, with the Patterson film, is a living thing–incongruous with what we know about established biology and zoology–filmed very briefly and at a distance, witnessed by only two men. What can be said about it definitively? Very little. But clearly it is quite possible and plausible for two men to cook up a scheme (involving a third to wear the suit) to fake a sighting such as this, and to carry it out. That circumstantially the film resists easy dismissal on this ground does not, in itself, constitute proof that the subject of the film is real.

    Now, here I do not at all refer to Mr. Coleman, whom I believe to be a scrupulously honest, careful, and professional sort… but the fact is that I never cease to be appalled at the hyperbole which is freely tossed around about this subject by others in the field and particularly by people who write in to this forum. It is simply not true, as asserted in one of the postings above, that “no one has even come close to explaining how it could have been faked.” In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked; Patterson may have constructed a suit or had one constructed, may have enlisted someone to wear the suit, and then filmed the well-choreographed sequence we have today. That it might have been a difficult undertaking for Patterson may or may not be the case; but at any rate that, as I said, does not constitute proof that Patterson couldn’t have done it. And as long as the possibility exists that he could, it’s utterly wrong to blithely dismiss this possibility simply because we want to believe. Were bigfoot in legend–and more importantly in the film–a twenty foot tall monstrosity with six arms and three heads (or some such configuration) we could of course much more reasonably dismiss the possibility of a hoax in this case. But bigfoot is none of these things. The bigfoot in Patterson’s film is well within the range of a man-sized creature, moving very much like a man (something which in itself speaks against the likelihood that this is a real, non-human animal) and is therefore more likely to be a man in a suit than an unknown primate or what have you.

    Notice I say “likely.” Here I sit on the fence. I do not say and have never said that I believe Patterson’s film to be a fake; I merely say it could have been, and reasonably so… and as such it does not equal evidence to me.

    Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.

  23. CrimsonFox79 responds:

    Great post! I still believe that the P-G footage is authentic, and one of the best clues we currently have towards the existence of bigfoot.
    IMO, especially for its time, the creature is way too detailed and realistic to be a hoax. Just looking at the shape, anatomy, musculature, etc. I can’t see that being a costume. The fur and musculature sits firmly upon the figure rather than seeming like a separate suit over another body. The face, while its far away and blurred, looks to be much more detailed than an old costume as well.

    I also disagree with the idea that ‘why are P-G the only people who ever had such an encounter’…
    We have animals we find today that no one has ever seen at all despite exploring the territory. So who’s to say an elusive, intelligent-seeming humanoid can’t go unseen?
    Heck- I still find bugs in my own small backyard that I have never seen before (despite a lifelong interest in insects and digging up my yard and through the grass/bushes for the past almost 3 decades.

    Just b/c something was only seen once, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Things that were never seen at all are there right under our noses. Some creatures are just better at hiding.
    Who knows what deep caves bigfoots may live in? I’ve been in bear caves…. and guess what- no bears in sight! Where are they? I dunno, but I do know they exist.
    There’s one park I go to nearby that has an extremely high population of deer for the small size of a park it is. I almost never see even 1 deer there.
    Because even when there is a huge abundance of animals, they somehow still remain hidden even when you are looking for them.
    I know you can’t compare deer to bigfoots, but it’s the same concept of how well creatures can remain hidden:
    An animal so overpopulated (deer) can remain unseen while you’re trying to find them.
    So why is it so odd that something rare, elusive, and (supposedly) very intelligent, wouldn’t know how to keep out of view of people even while they are searching for it?

  24. Sergio responds:

    rbhess wrote:

    “In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked…”

    True enough.

    It’s very easy to explain how it could have been faked, but very difficult to explain how it could have been faked without overlooking important details, using a great deal of hyperbole yourself, as well as imagination to the extreme.

    So far, all explanations have bordered on ridiculous, and in light of the facts in this case, have really just made not much sense.

    The fact that NO ONE has been able to replicate the film is VERY relevant, because it serves toward demonstrating the difficulty involved in staging such an event, especially in 1967, in a rough, debris-strewn creekbed, in a non-stop piece of film.

    rbhess also wrote:

    “Those that [sic] demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.”

    Geez. Do you people just look at yourselves in the mirror everyday and say to yourself, “I must be condescending. I must be condescending. I must be condescending….”

    Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.

    Challenging someone to carry out their boastful and brash words, is not at all indicative that anyone needs a lesson in the scientific method. I rather think you probably need to take a remedial course in “Playground Etiquette 101.”

  25. Loren Coleman responds:

    From “showme”:

    Tropical Asia, maybe. North America? I doubt it.

    Oh this was sad to see someone say this.

    One of the most adaptive great apes, the naked ape Homo sapiens has been able to live in a wide variety of climates, far beyond the tropics. Who is to not say that the wide-ranging Sasquatch have not also evolved thusly?

    And, of course, more than humans have lived in temperate climates, as the fossil records shows varied examples. One of the best known, of course, is Dryopithecus who lived in temperate Europe. Indeed, the name Dryopithecus means “oak-tree ape,” for some Dryopithecus were found with oak tree stumps and oak leaves.

  26. bill green responds:

    hey loren, totaly agree with you & everyone above replys the p/g film does look authentic & the best piece of evidence about the sasquatch pheanomena yet the conterversy continues about it but i guess that how stuff happens. thanks.

  27. red_pill_junkie responds:

    40 years and still the P-G film can create a lot of controversy. That’s a good thing.

    The film may be real (as I stated on ther thread I’m 30-40% convinced myself), but still more evidence is needed.

    And another video won’t suffice either I’m afraid, not in this era of computer simulations at least.

    But another video or photograph migth still be beneficial because it would convince more people to put more effort and funds into finding these creatures, use more sophisticated technology, like IP cameras on top of trees or something.

    Maybe a very good photograph could convince a Bill Gates or a Paul Allen to give a couple millions into what could be the greatest biological discovery of all time.

    How much money you think it could take to find Sasquatch? 1 million? 10?

    And I think that even if we DO find one of these creatures, there won’t be a “told you so” from the P-G film supporters, since there would STILL be people doubting the authenticity of the film.

  28. hlw responds:

    I was 19 when this footage was taken, it seems as real to me today as it seemed then.

    You have to be self absorbed to be able to think you know just what can adapt where. Nature has a way. Look at a penguin or a seal in a zoo, do they look like they should or could be swimming around and under ice, or living in cold climates. What would make a bigfoot less adaptable than a moose or elk? We now know that some dinosaurs lived in cold climates.

    Loren correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a study done of this film by Disney studios in the late 60’s or early 70’s specifically asking what it would cost to replicate this film. Wasn’t that cost in the vicinity of $50,000 then. Probably a couple more zeros than Patterson had.

  29. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Mr. Radford – If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.”

    The burden of proof is on the claimants to prove it is real, not on critics to prove it is fake. Besides that, it’s bad logic: You seem to be saying that a lack of definitive evidence proving the film is a fake means that it must be real…this makes no sense.

    For all those who demand to know where the suit is (after 40 years), or where the proof that the film is faked is: As cryptofolks are fond of saying, “absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” That applies to Bigfoot, and also to proof that the film is a fake.

  30. showme responds:

    Humans have adapted to colder climates because they can alter their circumstances by wearing clothing and using fire. We are not “naked apes” anymore when the temperature drops. Have any claims for clothing or firemaking ever been made concerning Sasquatch?

    I’m intrigued by the fossil evidence of Dryopithecus in Europe, but do we know exactly how cold it was back then?

  31. MadMatt32171 responds:

    Sergio: You’re right – Words don’t mean JACK, and your saying that P_G is “the real deal” doesn’t make it so. But don’t worry- should I ever have the time or inclination to fake a BigFoot video, I’ll let you have the first crack at it.

    AtomicMrEmonster: That Tor Johnson/Patty mask is a dead ringer- what’s its history? Was this done as an experiment to prove that a mask could have been made, or did it turn up as a result of research. I followed the link to the thread but couldn’t find any mention of it there.

  32. DARHOP responds:

    I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.

    Whatever. Well then convince me & the rest of us. For one, the $ issue. If you are like the rest of us, I don’t think you have the $ to come close to making a suit that look’s as good as your supposed Patty suit. Not only that. 6’5 & 325 just isn’t gonna do it my man. I’d guess that Patty is (or was) (Hope she is still with us) well over 4 hundred pounds. So honestly, I doubt you can make a video that comes even close to this one. It’s hard to duplicate the real thing. As so many have found out. I don’t know, maybe you can. So I say go for it, Get yourself a 325 pounder 6’5 fellow and make us a REAL GOOD video. And even if that was accomplished, it doesn’t prove the P/G film is fake. Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be. Doesn’t Exist!

  33. Loren Coleman responds:

    Remember folks, this is not a “forum” but a “comments” section.

    If you start arguing via personalized interchanges and begin flaming, you will see those comments of yours disappear.

    Thank you for keeping it to the points of the blog and not taking it off-topic or personalizing it.

  34. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be.”

    Again with the faulty logic! Does anyone else see just how ridiculous this burden of proof is? All that this person (and many others I’ve spoken to) needs to have the film be real is that the suit not materialize! So if what’s left of the suit is rotting away in a Spokane garbage dump, or if someone simply took a few minutes to burn the suit to destroy evidence of the hoax, then that automatically makes the film real…. “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”… remember?

    Attention all Bigfoot hoaxers: As long as you destroy any definitive evidence of your hoax, people will assume your hoax must be the real thing!

  35. rl_esteves responds:

    I’ve always thought this footage was legit. When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate. Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.

  36. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate.”

    Really? How do you know how much it would have cost to create the P/G film? Do you have a real estimate, or just a wild guess? Seems to me it could have been as little as a few hundred dollars…

  37. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.”

    This is a fascinating suggestion… anomalies should be considered real until proven fake. So we should assume that dragons, fairies, sea serpents, ghosts, and anything else that anyone considers “anomalous” are actual events. That is exactly the opposite of science.

    How, exactly, will that “advance our knowledge so much more”?

  38. DARHOP responds:

    Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.

    One doesn’t need science to know that no suit has ever been brought forth. And I honestly think that if one existed, it would of been brought forth by now.

  39. greenmartian2007 responds:

    I have read the majority of the comments here.

    I will put in my 2 cents.

    a) This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away. The posterior tells the tale. I would like all the readership here to get a copy of that book. Order one either via Hancock Publishing House up in Washington state, via Amazon, or even via interlibrary loan. Get the book, read it. Look at the stills.

    b) Ape suits that are well done are not difficult to make (that is, ones that don’t “have a zipper showing”). I don’t have the URL link off hand, but there is a website forum on-line, all about the P-G film , and has many images (film stills) of ape costumes from the 1940s and 1950s (that is, ten to 25 years earlier) from a variety of wild creature and monster-type movies that look very veracious (and there is no zipper to be seen, and now usage of prosthetic extenders for arms, none of that). So attempting to use the BBC’s “mock-umentary” effort (you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget, and this still shown in this thread is from another BBC production suffering from such a fiscal malady) is bogus. I hope that one of the readers here can supply that specific URL link to the discussion forum showing the film stills, etc. from other “ape” films. That particular website is very enlightening, very instructive.

    c) Ape suits do not need to be exceptionally complex to be viewed (especially in a long shot, as the P-G film is) as decently “real.”

    d) Wasn’t there already articles about a guy claiming to be the person who was in the suit? What about that? Why not have a thread about that facet? He was even on some TV program, and underwent a polygraph. The polygraph examination indicated he was not lying. Wasn’t there a Mark Chorvinsky (please excuse if I have the wrong person–an editor with Strange magazine) article about the guy in the suit also?

    e) This P-G film is NOT the only footage of Sasquatch out there. I am exceptionally puzzled as to why NO ONE in this thread is talking about the video footage on the back end of DVD “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”….I don’t have it right in front of me, but there is a very extended video clip by a park ranger of one of these creatures walking in front of a pine tree, and later on, attempting to hide behind a thicket, and later, on, appears to pick up something animate and small and walks off…THAT is a real sasquatch video. THAT has more weight (yes, it is also not very clear, but it’s real, from my viewing of it)…that videotape has more verismillitude than this P-G film. (There is also another video at the back of the DVD as well of a running Sasquatch, perhaps. That one I have reservations about. But this 1994 clip, if memory serves, looks like what the “atmospherics” would be of videotaping creatures out in the wild, in the woods.)

    f) I think there is a grave peril, Loren, when you hang your hat on this P-G film footage. Because if it is proven to be fake, beyond a reasonable doubt, less interested bystanders will tell you, “Hey, you said this was real. And it’s fake. Let’s go, Mabel.” See what I am saying? Cyrptozoology cannot afford to “bless” questionable footage as being REAL and AUTHENTICATED (truly, the P-G film footage has not been shown to be, in either labeling). Let’s move forward, and get some real, true, outrageously grand central footage.

    g) You talk about the footprints at the site allegedly left by Patty. How much examination of these prints has there been? I dimly recall reading that there were several rains between the “event” and the actual filming of some of those prints, when Patterson went back to film them (I hope that I am recalling that correctly). (I am attempting to say that the footprints from the P-G event weren’t fresh.)

    h) What I will say, is that the P-G film is a catalyst for further research. That is what I will agree to, and stand on as a position on this topic, a viewpoint that I can 100% whole-heartedly support.

  40. DWA responds:

    And here we go, off for 100 posts again!

    One thing that needs no proof, because we prove it over and over again, right here: if this was a hoax, there has never been another anywhere near its league. Not one that’s ever been sniffed out, anyway. Sheer genius, to do it with less than a minute of film. Sound like Patterson to you?

    1. One of the funniest things about the sasquatch is all the lame attempts to explain why “no one ever sees one.” MANY, MANY people see these animals. RSR!

    2. If any other animal can adapt to a cold climate, there is nothing that says or even implies that the sas can’t. He doesn’t need fire, any more than bear or moose do. How in the world can anyone say there’s any scientific evidence that apes can’t live in the cold? Everything else does: there are fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, all the way down to protozoans that can do it. (Some can even live frozen.) There were elephants that did, and rhinoceroses that did. What, apes are the sole exception? The sas’s size is one item in its favor; its ability to routinely catch and eat many things other animals (like bears) can’t is another. I could go on, but why? It’s silly. If the sas exists, voila! we have a snow ape to go with our snow monkey. Eureka!

    3. What skeptics need to get over – and can’t – is the General Implausibility Theorem. There is nothing anywhere in the scientific canon that pronounces the sasquatch impossible, implausible or even unlikely. Show me why you think it can’t exist, or even why it is unlikely that it does, and I will show you – easily – why you are wrong. No one has met this challenge yet, so don’t waste your time.

    4. If you showed a scientist from a far galaxy every life form on earth – except us and the sas – and told him to pick which of the two latter was the most plausible based on what he now knew, the alien would pick the sas, every single time. WE are the science-fiction fantasy that can’t exist. Yet here we are.

    5. Here it is. No one who knows about this animal even what I know considers it either (a) unlikely or (b) nonexistent. Not if he’s smart enough to understand what he knows.

    Period.

    And yes, I’m a skeptic on the sas. Which, if you say you are, should really give you pause. You’re not a skeptic; you are a closed-eyed, feverishly-praying nonbeliever.

    Sorry. I deal in facts; and there it is. Facts.

  41. DWA responds:

    and rl_esteves:

    Exactly right. Patterson-Gimlin can elicit only one rational response: That’s an unknown animal. Until we prove it isn’t.

    Too many people, including scientists, when faced with the unknown, forget how science is supposed to work. The thinking that suppresses and stymies knowledge is NOT how science works! Not when it’s working.

    P/G is evidence. When science is working properly, evidence is FOLLOWED UP TO A CONCLUSION.

  42. bccryptid responds:

    I agree with Loren, my own views:

    The object moves fluidly in the terrain, it is comfortable and confident as it moves along a dry riverbed and up into the trees. I have yet to see a person in a suit do this, unless they have practiced for weeks to do it in a movie. Until I see an amateur pull off this kind of confident motion in a hoax video, I remain convinced of the film’s authenticity on this alone.

    The object matches thousands of eyewitness descriptions. Barrel body. Very long arms. Conical head. Fur covered chest. On and on. And to top it off, the object is very female, a feature that is seldom reported but when reported, again MATCHES The video. Why would they make a female suit? MUCH harder to pull off, and so few sightings are female. No, they would have gone with the modified male gorilla suit job.

    I disagree with the poster on here that states that a human could anatomically fit in that shape. I would like to see that demonstrated. Every demonstration I have seen proves the opposite.

  43. deejay responds:

    i think the footage is fake, but I still think there may be bigfoot out there. maybe an unpopular opinion here, but never the less, i am entitled to it. to me, it looks like a person in a suit, even examining the close-ups, it still doesn’t convince me. patterson was a con artist, thats well documented. The P/G Bigfoot doesn’t move like an animal thats been hiding in the wild for all these years, even giant gorillas move with great fluidity and stealth. The P/G Bigfoot looks nothing like that.

  44. DWA responds:

    greenmartian2007: it does nothing for your stance against Loren that you commit the same sins of which you accuse him, in spades.

    1. “This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away.”

    Only two things I need to say to this. (a) The stills you mention don’t blow anything away but the notion that this critter can be easily blown away. Unless you have info to which we are not privy – like details – and are prepared to share that with us. The “posterior” item you discuss was lonog ago dismissed as the red herring it is. I own the book of which you speak. Makes a good case for the animal. And says: P/G is a real, unknown critter. (b) “Didn’t they confirm the existence of this animal last year? Come on, Mabel.” Grave peril there, gm.

    2. Your comments in b) and c) of your post. I have seen two, count ’em two, pieces of video sas evidence that I have not immediately dismissed as either fake or blobsquatch. P/G is one. An ape suit that can convince me that ain’t human is something against which I’d be willing to bet, if you gotta put a human in it, and make him look natural. People in ape suits have universally looked, in my experience, precisely like people in ape suits. P/G looks nothing like any ape suit I have ever seen; and all ape suits, in fundamental respects, look alike. (Human proportions, for one thing, a dead giveaway. A human walking in them, yet another.)

    3. Your comments in d) of your post. I deal only in facts and evidence and here’s a fact: no one has made a claim to involvement in a P/G hoax whose testimony wasn’t ludicrous on its face. Period.

    4. How can you say what you say in h) after everything else you said? If it is fake, exactly what is it catalyzing? Further research in Really Good Fake Suits?

  45. DWA responds:

    (You may see the skeletal beginnings of this post above. Keystroke glitch.)

    When Sergio says:

    “Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.”

    He hits the nail right on the head.

    See, this is the skeptics’ problem: thinking they can get away with outlandish claims that MUST be proven for the skeptic to have a position a thinking person is obliged to respect.

    They say it’s easy, and in 40 years no one has come within 50 miles of beginning to get really far away from it.

    It gets pretty tiresome to see the same old urban-ignoramus arguments-against, particularly when spewed by people alleging credentials. I don’t care if you are a scientist or not. I can tell out of which orifice you are speaking on this topic, pretty much instantly.

    Try me. You are getting SO old. Try thinking. It’s sort of standard on this site.

    Sheesh. Fort was RIGHT!

  46. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    MadMatt32171:

    The mask was made a few years ago using materials available in the 60’s. Back in 2005, a guy by the name “Dfoot” built such a mask for a Halloween Bigfoot dummy. The total cost of the dummy was about $250! The pictures of the dummy are gone, but the comments about it were very positive. The mask was made by taking a Don Post Tor Johnson mask, attaching a mouth (and, apparently, chin) cut from a Don Post “Bongo the Chimp” mask to it, and then building up some details and adding hair to it. Dfoot claimed that this naturally created the “dent” seen on Patty’s face (His comments make it seem to have been prior to when the mask got its details built up;I think the picture on the bottom right is the “unfinished mask with a fake eye”).

    Here is a picture of a “Bongo the Chimp” mask; I haven’t found a picture of a Don Post Caveman mask yet. I’ve found several Don Post Tor Johnson masks, but I’m not sure when they were made or which style they are (thicker, high quality masks-I’m not sure of the date or maker, but this shows what I’m talking about-and thin, less sculpted versions for the cheap crowd/kids-as seen in pharmacies in October).

    This 1964 ad for what seems to be these types of masks for $30.00, whereas this ad advertises $8.95 masks. This site claims that this is a 60’s Tor Mask and that it sold for $8.95. Here are some other $8.95 masks. To me, the price implies that this could be one of the “thin, cheap” masks. Searching this site’s gallery section found several masks, one is said to be a 90’s redesign and the others aren’t dated (and often have custom paint jobs). Also, a Don Post gorilla suit cost $450 and up in 1964. I’m not saying Patterson used a Don Post ape suit, I’m merely showing how much a good premade ape suit went for then.

    This could explain Patty’s supposedly short hairs. Patterson would need hair for the mask, hands, and feet and, if he didn’t/couldn’t buy more fake fur, he could’ve cut the long hairs on the suit in half and used the clippings on them.

  47. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    mystery_man:

    Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).

    I haven’t seen these yet and don’t know how accurate they are, but I figured that people here would be interested:

    The movie “Phantom of the Rue Morgue” supposedly has a gorilla suit with a Patty-esque body.

    I’ve heard that the cotton batting muscles used for George Reeves’ costume on the old Superman TV series moved with his body.

    Apparently, there’s a scene in “Watchers Reborn” where a monster has to turn its entire torso around, a la Patty.

    I’ve also heard that the workprint footage from the Star Trek pilot episode “The Cage” contains a scene with moving leg muscles being seen on an “Anthropoid Ape” costume worn by Janos Prohaska. It seems to be on the Star Trek Volume 3 DVD boxset, but I’m not 100% sure.

  48. mystery_man responds:

    AtomicMrEmonster- What I meant was that there is a lack of purportedly REAL footage that is as good as the PG footage seems to be to everyone. If there was such footage available, then why is the PG footage considered the “best evidence” and has been pored over for all of these years? There is nothing seriously approaching it because if there was, it would be getting discussion time here right along with this one. Thanks for the info on Patty- esque footage though!

    GreenMartian- I did not say that PG is the ONLY film of a supposed sasquatch, just that it is the only one that seems to be strikingly clear enough and of such good quality to be considered such fantastic evidence of the creature and therefore so widely embraced as real. If the clip you mentioned was so mind blowing, then why is it not discussed over and over again on forums such as this? Extraordinary claims like sasquatch are going to require extraordinary footage to make people consider it. There is not much competition with the PG film as being the definitive video evidence and this somewhat bothers me as I mentioned in my post way above. This point actually raises my skepticism about the authenticity of the film.

    A lot of people seems to think that the fact that it hasn’t been reproduced and hasn’t seen much competition is a reason why it could be a real creature. Maybe. But I also think it is suspicious that no other footage like this would be produced from time to time if the creature was real. We have less clear clips out there that could be real, but nothing like PG, and that just doesn’t sit well with me. Perhaps Patterson was just incredibly lucky, at the right place, and the right time to get this footage, but with all those searching for sasquatch this hasn’t happened again to such effect? Ever? I think that maybe there is also as much a chance that a lot of factors could have fallen into place to produce an amazing hoax as well, and the possibilities have been discussed here before.

    I would be more inclined to believe that this footage was definitively real if we had other comparable clips with just as much realism and a still had a lack of anyone able to reproduce them. If there was absence of any suit brought forward and these sorts of amazing clips popped up more often, that would be more indicative to me as a likely real creature even in the absence of physical evidence. But what we have is this one clip and I cannot accept it as any sort of irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot. Highly compelling? Yes. Proof? No.

    Is the PG footage a once in a life time shot of a real, giant hairy hominid? I think it is possible. Is it a fluke and Patterson managed to pull of a once in a lifetime hoax? I think that is possible too, in my opinion. In the end I do not take the lack of success of anyone able to reproduce it as proof of this being authentic footage. And so, I remain on the fence.

  49. jules responds:

    About the footage – Hum, I could argue both sides. Things can remain hidden. I have been hiking in Iowa for many years – plenty of wildlife around here. I have never seen any bones laying around.

    Yesterday a pheasant and I almost scared each other to death! I guess they like to hide in long grass.

  50. Lyndon responds:

    “”(you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget,””

    Complete nonsense. In fact, BBC documentary programes are famed for not doing things on the cheap. As a BBC licence payer, I can tell you that the BBC are reknowned for extravagant spending.

    The X Creatures series certainly wasn’t done on the cheap. In the Bigfoot episode alone they actually took the time, trouble and expense to visit various out of the way scenes of past encounters and sightings. These ranged from northern California to British Columbia. I don’t know of many (any?) other Bigfoot documentaries that actualy took the time and trouble to get to these out of the way locations (from example the location of Glenn Thomas’ rock pile sighting in Oregon to Mike McDonald’s BC Fraser River sighting). They could have done it on the cheap and not bothered to visit ANY of these locations.

    The BBC obviously bit off more than they could chew regarding a Patty replica. It quite plainly became obvious to them during the making of this documentary that a true replica would be either impossible or cost an extortionate amount of money…..far more than was initially realised. Only then did they cut their losses. The rest of the programme was by no means ‘done on a shoe-string budget’.

    One more thing. It wasn’t a ‘BBC suit’. The X Creatures suit actually came from the award winning Optic Nerve studios, run by John Vulich. This is even more interesting.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.