Sasquatch Coffee

So Do You Want To Talk About The Patterson-Gimlin Footage?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 21st, 2012

The topic on the table for the day: Should we even talk about the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967?

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

I disagree with one of my good Canadian friends in this video about one little detail. To wit, John Bindernagel thinks we shouldn’t talk about the footage at all. Well, I do, and I’m wondering how you feel about this issue? (It is okay to disagree with each other in this field; it happens all the time and people can remain friends.)

Patty

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. 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.


56 Responses to “So Do You Want To Talk About The Patterson-Gimlin Footage?”

  1. Liam Frain via Facebook responds:

    Yes, yes I would.

  2. Sharon Lee responds:

    Last weekend I was attempting to shoot video advertising for Cryptopalooza (cryptopalooza.com) (shameless plug) I did take after take after take and was not satisfied with any of the video I shot.

    Now, look at this film. This one event was shot in it’s entirety on October 20, 1967. One take. There were no flubs. No re-takes. What are the chances of that?????

    Think about it, when you are filming an event, you keep your camera rolling and edit later. If you are staging a scene, you will do take after take to get it just right.

    To me it appears that the event was filmed as it happened organically. No actors, no costumes, no retakes.

  3. cryptokellie responds:

    I remember seeing the film when it was released back in the late sixties and the uproar it caused. Something about this film bothers me, something about the way the figure moves is very upsetting. I have seen many, many bigfoot films and almost all of them, say 95%, can be dismissed with a groan or a chuckle. Not this one. It is a feeling that I can’t shake no matter how many times I see it discussed or debunked – whatever. Read what you will into the footage, something in this film is not what we’re used to seeing in our everyday experiences and I think that’s why this film has continued be the high water-mark for crypto evidence.

  4. fooled responds:

    I was under the impression that this footage was dismissed when it was revealed that the dude who was inside the costume and his family and relatives had been laughing at all this media attention for decades. Not to forget that the artist who made the costume and his wife had been laughing at the buzz for decades.

    Basically everyone involved has admitted that this is fake, long long time ago, and hundreds of people have known it. Except, of course, the shady characters who set up the whole “happening”.

    It would be much wiser to focus the energy on the cases that aren’t super obvious fakes, like experienced hunters seeing bigfoots in close range and passing lie detector test (these guys know all the creatures and have skinned bears and have passed medical eye-tests with flying colours).

  5. windigo responds:

    The mere fact that Dr. Bindernagel chooses not to discuss the footage may indicate a heart-felt inner suspicion that challenges the authenticity of the film. I truly hope that is not the case. This footage remains the best piece of singular evidence for the existence of this creature. It has stood the test of time, as it has undergone the rigors of critical scientific analysis and, to the chagrin of the skeptics, science in several ways has lent itself to its authenticity. Namely, the gait of the creature and the accompanying skeletal dynamics required to produce such locomotion denote a level of genuineness in the film. Also, to that of a human, the disproportionate limb ratios are once again quite challenging to incorporate into a hoax. There are many ways to cosmetically create such a creature, but all such measures would take away from the natural fluidity of the subject, and be visibly depreciated. None of this exists in the film, and quite to the contrary, the subject proceeds without physical “hitches” of any discernible kind. Also, on a lesser scale, I have always been taken back by the pronounced appearance of mammary glands on the creature. Not to think that it would be out of the realm of possibility for individuals to concoct this element within a hoax, but I find this attribute of the creature quite compelling given the likelihood that it would not have crossed their minds.

    In the end, and as technology advances, maybe we will eventually be able to garner more from the P&G footage that may alter my view, and others. For now, I am indeed a firm believer in the authenticity of this film and what I feel it represents to the Cryptozoological world.

  6. cryptokellie responds:

    Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that the Patterson film is definitley a bigfoot caught on camera…odds are that, and the odds get better all the time with no body being found anywhere, this is not a “real” bigfoot. What I am saying is that this film is disturbing to look at in a way that all the other films aren’t. Hoax or not, after 45 years, people are still evaluating this piece of footage. The film is not pleasant to watch because it doesn’t scream
    “real” or “fake”…it quietly says “this is something odd – something that shouldn’t be.”

  7. Wolfie0827 responds:

    Fooled:
    While there was claims by others (Not Patterson or Gimlin) that this was a fake and they were in on it. None of them could provide proof of the claim of hoax and were dismissed as just trying to gain money/fame off of someone’s work.

    As to the film, I believe it is still as valuable today as the day it was shown to the public and should be continued to be analyzed and discussed. There is nothing even closely comparable in length to this film that gives a good look at locomotion and the movement of the body/musculature. They are still finding new evidence from this film to add to what we have on this creature and so far very little looks like it could discredit it.

  8. Loren Coleman responds:

    Okay, let’s look at this, point by point.

    First, “fooled” writes: “I was under the impression that this footage was dismissed”

    Your “impression” and assumptions are incorrect.

    “Fooled” writes: “when it was revealed that the dude who was inside the costume and his family and relatives had been laughing at all this media attention for decades.”

    I think you are mixing up your claims and it is a shame people actually post such misinformation. Sources? Citations?

    “Fooled” then says; “Not to forget that the artist who made the costume and his wife had been laughing at the buzz for decades.”

    Again, evidence that Ray Wallace’s tales of his wife being inside the costume in a very faked film of 1971 (which was well-known at the time) has been confused with the P-G footage of 1967.

    Finally “fooled” shares: “Basically everyone involved has admitted that this is fake, long long time ago, and hundreds of people have known it. Except, of course, the shady characters who set up the whole ‘happening’.”

    “Everyone”? Who would that be?

    “Shady characters”? Again, whom?

    “Fooled,” indeed.

  9. fuzzy responds:

    “The topic on the table for the day: Should we even talk about the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967?”

    WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? OF COURSE we should talk about the most important Bigfoot film ever made!!

    Even if the film turns out to be a fake, look at all the incredible investigatory techniques that have been invented, perfected and employed over the years to analyze this film – researchers and professionals contributing their time and expertise to the challenge, cutting-edge equipment developed (digital scanning and comparative imaging and skeletal superimposition and movement stabilization and on and on) – all suggesting to me that the MORE we discuss the film, the more experts become willing to devote their time and specialties to the Quest!

    And that, obviously, can only contribute to better understanding of this and other mysteries that confound the best of our minds.

    What if we had stopped discussing Patty after the clowns had jumped ito the fray, shouting ME, IT WAS ME IN A SUIT!!! ???

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    Loren, yes, this is always a good topic of discussion.

    I believe “fooled” has made several mistatements. None of his statements are statements of fact or they are in the least, statements of blurred facts.

    Loren, I also believe “fooled” was not referring to the Ray Wallace incident. I believe the “dude” that “fooled” made reference to was Bob Heironimus [not to be confused with Dr. Bob Hieronimus of Washington D.C. 21st Century Radio ~ Loren]. He made statements that he was the one wearing a modified gorilla suit in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Obviously, there are several people making claims that they were in some type of BF suit. We know that can not be true. There was only one PG film, so some one aming that claim is lying about being in a suit or they are all lying about being in a suit.

    Bob Heironimus was probably the most noteworthy and outspoken person making these claims. He repeated this claim for years and never let up from making those claims, year after year. He also took a lie detector test that was televised and passed the lie detector while on live TV. I believe he did that back in 2005 when he was about 67 years of age.

    The only problem with Bob Heironimus’ testimony, is that he was never ever to produce a gorilla like suit that ever came close to matching what is seen in the PG footage. He did produce some gorilla suit but it was laughable and not even close to what is seen in the PG film. I believe his wife backed up his claims along with several other friends of his. The other problem with Bob Heironimus’s claim is that lie detectors are not infallible. They can be fooled and done with regularity by certain individuals, knowing how to beat the test. So nothing is really conclusive about passing the lie detector when you can not even produce a suit that comes close to the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Passing or failing a lie detector means very little unless you are trying to add credibility to certain evidence. Do lie detectors hold up as evidence in a court of law? The answer makes me LOL! Unless one has supporting evidence, passing a lie detector means very little in my opinion. A bad gorilla suit does not back up Dr. Bob Heironimus’ claim and is in direct contradiction to the results of the lie detector.

    Anyway, I believe “fooled” was referring to Bob Heironimus and not Ray Wallace and his wife. Still, Loren, your argument against “fooled”‘s facts, still stands. Whether he was referring to Bob Heironimus or Ray Wallace, his facts on either one of those two claimants are blurred.

  11. SweatyYeti responds:

    I just logged-on to your site, Loren…to look-up an old article…and was pleased to see your new article about the Patterson Film…including one of my ‘mouth movement’ animations….(made using Bill Munns’ ‘Copy 8′ images.)

    Of course, I think we should continue talking about, and analyzing this Film!

    In fact…regarding Patty’s ‘apparent mouth movement’ …I have just recently been watching movies from that time period which have ‘flexible ape masks’ in them, such as… ‘Planet of the Apes’…and ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. And, in looking at the mouth movement, in those ‘flexible ape masks’…..I noticed one particular aspect of Patty’s mouth movement…(visible in a few Film Frames)…..that is NOT SEEN in the masks of those high-budget Hollywood productions.

    I will be researching this further…but, at the moment…it looks pretty definitive, to me, that Patty moves her mouth/lips in a way that was beyond the technology of the day.

    Also…I have one ‘mouth movement animation’ which I have never posted anywhere….either here, or on any Bigfoot Discussion Board….which shows the most significant degree of mouth movement on Patty. That animation contains this particular ‘aspect’ of mouth movement, which is not seen in Movies of that time period.

    I think it will eventually PROVE Patty is/was a real creature. I’m hoping to have something extensive to post, on this….for the 45th Anniversary of the Film. :)

  12. Loren Coleman responds:

    But PhotoExpert, it was “fooled” that used the example of a “hoaxer” and his wife and his family’s laughter. That could only apply to some mixed up version of the Ray Wallace film stories. There is no evidence that Bob Heironimus told anyone, laughed with anyone, said anything about his wife (or if he even has one) in a costume, and so forth.

    Doesn’t matter really, I guess. Anyone that begins with the assumption that the P-G footage has been explained away hasn’t kept up with anything other than one-note media accounts anyway.

  13. Craig Woolheater responds:

    Or was it Philip Morris and his wife?

  14. Loren Coleman responds:

    “Philip Morris and his wife,” ha, I don’t think so, as far as the source of the P-G footage!! And really, Philip Morris’ comments are not too widely known for most media folks to see him as the source of any explanations.

  15. Rob008 responds:

    I would like to throw my two cents in on this one. I believe that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin got lucky and taped a real bigfoot. The old expression “Right place and the right time.” I think the fact that they were on horses was a contributing factor as to why they got to see the bigfoot. I believe that the horse smell overpowered the human smell and the Bigfoot in question didn’t leave when she smelled them. I’ve always thought that the main reason we don’t see bigfoots is that they smell or hear us coming and take off before we get a chance to see them. Of course, back in the early 1970’s there wasn’t a whole lot of people out bigfoot hunting as there is now. I also think we lost some bigfoots when Mount St Helens exploded. Ape Canyon is right next to the volcano. Again these are my opinions.

  16. PhotoExpert responds:

    Loren, agreed, yes, I totally agree with you. That is why I posted the “fooled”‘s version of the facts are blurred. Without him being specific or backing up his post with sources or citations, I really do not have any idea what he is talking about.

    I am not sure if he meant Bob Heironimus or Ray Wallace or even Philip Morris, as Craig pointed out. It does not matter though, what we do know is that “fooled” does not have any accurate version of the events. They are blurry in his own mind. And he left it up to us, those that do have specific recollection of the facts, to figure it out.

    Loren, you stated it correctly: “Doesn’t matter really, I guess. Anyone that begins with the assumption that the P-G footage has been explained away hasn’t kept up with anything other than one-note media accounts anyway.”

    That was my point of the original post. Pick one “fooled”. Is it Ray Wallace or Philip Morris or Dr. Bob, that you are referring to? It makes no difference! It does not matter, because his facts are blurred. Even pick a new name–same results. The PG footage has not been explained away to date, even after critical analysis by modern day experts. To say anything other than that, well, is foolhearty. I guess his moniker is appropriate for his post=”fooled”.

    We are in agreement Loren!

  17. cryptokellie responds:

    Now we are getting to the crux of what I am trying explain. In 1967-68, the time frame we are dealing with, we do have ape costumes. Most notably, The “Planet Of the Apes” and “2001 ASO” “Dawn of Man” costumes. The POTA costumes are very skilled and very entertaining but in no way are they believable as living creatures. They are instantly recognizable as humans in costumes. But on another level you have the ape-men in Kubrick’s “2001 ASO” – “Dawn of Man” sequence. Here is state of the art (1968) costuming with no expenses spared, scientific data and film expertise available ape-men costumes.

    Yet with all the talent and money spent…they are still instantly recognizable as humans in costumes. Look at the sequence…the actors, however skilled at mime and body control are moving as humans move and projecting human demeanor. Watch where some of the suited actors are actually with real chimpanzees. You instantly know that what you are seeing is a person wearing a clever costume next to a real chimpanzee. The actors are acting in the manner they believe that an ape-man would act. The chimp is merely being a chimp…no acting. What enables us to perceive the difference between the two is “Tacit Knowledge”.

    It is the ability to pick out a familiar face in a crowd and is based on experience in the living world. The actors in those films are humans acting like apes, thinking about acting like apes, but still recognizable as humans, however cleverly disguised. The figure in the Patterson film seems very comfortable and fluid, not trying to act more like anything than what it is. No self conscious ape-miming, no monster walking.

    Here than is the problem; either this is a human in a suit comparable or better than the aforementioned films (unlikely given Patterson’s circumstances) or an unknown bipedal (apes are not bipeds) mammal. My common sense tells me that this footage is a human in a suit…but my tacit knowledge cannot find reference points for identification. At any frame speed, I don’t recognize this figure as a human in a costume or not…that is why this film bothers me and continues to do so even after 45 years. I cannot recognize what’s in it.

  18. William responds:

    I agree with Loren’s take that this “Fooled” was referring to the Wallace family discrediting the PG film as fake although to my knowledge they never flat out stated that it was as they were certainly not involved in it whatsover. It has always bothered me that this Heironomous character was able to pass a polygraph although so did Roger Patterson, which may be less well known. At any rate, I have sort of an off-the-wall theory on how Bob H was able to pass his lie detector – mind you it is just a theory so do not crucify me for it. Here goes: it is my understanding that Patterson was trying to obtain financing to film an actual movie where a chase of a bigfoot would be involved (story line never much developed that I know of) and that would lend the possibility that perhaps Patterson did purchase a suit and perhaps he had Bob H don it at some point for a trial run. If true this would mean that the only lies being told here would be by Bob H that he was indeed wearing it during the famous film. The costume maker would not be lying either, just confused into thinking that his suit was used for the film.

  19. CDC responds:

    This is a very easy scientific deduction with the Patterson/Gimlin film for me.

    No drama, no lies, no mystery, it’s very simple…in my opinion.

    I believe the Patterson/Gimlin film to be that of a real animal because there is a scientific method to prove it.

    The method is duplicate the event…and you can’t.

    Those who claim it is a hoax, well, you have the man who claims to have made the suit. You have the man who claims to have worn the suit, you have the camera, film, location, everything necessary to make an exact duplication of that film…a scientific method of repeating an experiment to achieve the same results…and they CAN’T DO IT!!!!

    The fact that in over forty years there has not been a hoaxed film to come CLOSE to the Patterson/Gimlin film, in my opinion demonstrates that the Patterson/Gimlin film is of a real animal, showing the only way to duplicate the film, is to film another REAL ANIMAL.

    Morris, Heironimus, claim they did it once, so they should prove their claim and do it again. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY HAVE NOT MADE A SIMPLE DUPLICATE FILM…NO REASON!!!!!!!!

    They claim Roger Patterson was out to make a quick buck, well…I can make that same claim about Morris and Heironimus.

    It’s not faith, it’s science with me. The Patterson/Gimlin film is the ONLY actual evidence of a Bigfoot type creature in my opinion, that cannot be duplicated or faked.

    If it were a simple hoax using simple equipment over 40 years ago…it should have been duplicated by now. The fact that to this day it has NOT been replicated…in my opinion says it was of a real animal.

    With the budgets for all the production companies that have done shows about Bigfoot…there should have been a duplicate film made by now. Roger Patterson had less money to work with than any production company, logic says…it is of a real animal.

  20. William responds:

    The more I view it, the more I think it is real. If it was a suit the hair coverage would be more uniform and in the film you can see it is not which speaks to a real creatiure as some parts of a real animial have places where the hair may be thin or worn for various reasons. The dark sort of V shape at the back of it’s neck has always intrigued me though. It doesn’t seem to be part of the hair on the head like on a person but seems more like a type of mane as a horse has only in the shape of a V. You also see jiggling when it walks as if there is some actual fat on the creature which I do not think a suit would show, even one with today’s technology much less in 1967. I think this was the real deal.

  21. LobsterBoy responds:

    Hey Y’all-

    No easy answers here. I happen to agree with Bindernagel that this film has little more to offer as of now. The fact is that it has been analyzed many times, and there just isn’t any way to reach any more conclusions about it.if someone produces comparable or superior footage, perhaps revisiting PGF would be useful.

    I find the footage haunting for a few reasons.first, I am a trained illustrator and sculptor. I have done work for years for CM studio, a major producer of life sized Dinosaur replicas, as well as scale model representations. A familiarity with zoological anatomy is crucial to convincing depictions of extinct species, and of course study of human form and anatomy are basic illustration disciplines. The subject in the PGF just looks natural to me. I have watched it many hundreds of times and continue to find the anatomical details persuasive. It also has a very unusual locomotion and overall sense of mass. I do not know what the film shows.

    And therein lies the problem. We have no type specimen with which to make a meaningful comparison. And while I am not convinced by the hoax claimants, this does not constitute a valid argument for the reality of the PGF subject. The film has been more or less exhausted in terms of any information it can offer. I agree also with Rene Dahinden who spent a great deal of time and effort trying to validate its existence: “the longer we go without a discovery, the less likely it exists”. The time has come for new evidence, if not an outright discovery, and the standard must be raised.

  22. Wolfie0827 responds:

    Question for Loren and the others here at Cryptomundo:

    Was this the kind of response you were looking for? Or was it just a general question with now concerns or expectations for how people would respond.

    Because the overwhelming response seems to be a big fat “YES”, the film should continue to be discussed and analyzed.

  23. bobzilla responds:

    I’m not a scientist and have no science background, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

    I’m still not convinced it’s a bigfoot in the film. I always found it hard to see all the muscle movements and things people swear are there, proving it’s a bigfoot.

    The “breasts” on the creature in the video, I honestly never noticed until they were pointed out (so to speak). Most pictures of female apes that I’ve seen, don’t show breasts that large. I would think, if they were that large, then perhaps she had recently given birth, and if that’s true, I doubt (in MY opinion) she would have gone that far away from her baby. “She” doesn’t look pregnant to me, either.

    The look back at the camera I always found odd as well as the relaxed gate. There were men, horses, cameras and guns. I’m would think the horses were making noises, being startled and the men might also have been yelling in surprise and disbelief. I would think the creature would have been moving faster, possibly yelling itself (any reports from Bob G. about the creature making any noise, I don’t remember). I think the creature would have looked back more than once or at least threw rocks or something as it went to scare off the possible threat.

    We see it run into the woods, but where did it come FROM? By the look of the film, it seems it would have had to pass in front of the men quite a bit before they filmed it.

    Why are the stories of Bob H. and Phillip Morris dismissed so easily? (This is an honest question, I really don’t know.) If this was a hoax, maybe not everyone was in on it. Maybe Bob G. was the one who wound up being hoaxed and didn’t realize it.

    Is it true that Patterson was thinking of making a bigfoot movie? Was this “test footage” maybe?

    again, I am truly asking these questions, because I’d like to know. Not being a smart alec or anything.

    Thanks.

  24. oldphilosopher responds:

    It seems to me that there is now a very real problem with the PG film having entered the public consciousness as myth. In some it inspires a semi-religious “belief”. Among others, the haze and fog spouted by diverse and unrelated debunkers has inspired an urban myth that the film was long ago successfully discredited.

    Loren’s question, then, MUST be answered in the affirmative. To end competent debate would of necessity result only in surrender to myth. The issue of what is depicted in the film must remain the subject of rational and scientific debate. As testing techniques are refined, they must continue to be applied, and all results considered dispassionately. This is the scientific method.

    Likewise, those who would debunk must continue to be challenged. What has quite properly become known as “scoftic” behavior and remarks are unacceptable and should not be entertained in any proper debate. But we must also beware the trap of responding to debunkers in a similarly “scoftic” manner.

    It is easy for exhaustion to set in with a topic such as this one. And exhaustion breeds frustration. I suspect that is simply where Mr. Bindernagel is. Frustration is the enemy of debate. My hope is that analysts of good will all continue with their pursuits, and that opponents and proponents alike be calmly – but constantly – put to their proof.

  25. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    Oh, yes. Perhaps if someone nowadays could take the Patterson film on a world tour like Rene Dahinden, it would open up some closed minds. Today’s Scientific Establishment is largely (99.999999%) unaware of the trips Dahinden took to the former Soviet Union, Finland, and England so maybe if HD quality versions of the film can be shown at large lectures and such things might slightly change (regarding the attitude of the cynics).

  26. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    When it comes to claims of ‘men in suits’, their stories are so unreliable it’s not even serious to even think about it. First it was Jerry Romney, then it was Mrs. Ray Wallace, now it’s Bob Heironimous………

  27. William responds:

    There are a slew of problems for the PG film creature being a man in a suit. I think it has been fairly well determined that the subject was nearly 8 ft tall, according to most studies, 7’6″ to be exact. If so, none of the claimed suit wearers were close to that height. Also, the length of the creatures thigh was much longer than a normal human in comaparison to its lower leg length. This too would be problematic for any of the alleged suit wearers to explain. One thing I always wondered though is whether Bob Gimlin recalls ever hearing any howls at night when they were camping in obvious BF territory for several weeks.

  28. DWA responds:

    Two things mystify me utterly:

    1. Why Bindernagel doesn’t want to talk about the film;
    2. Why people who call themselves “skeptical” swallow whole every idiot’s story who says this is fake.

  29. TheForthcoming responds:

    fooled:

    It seems to me that you are very highly ignorant of this footage and have done either little research on this footage and it’s history or are extremely biased against it for some reason.

    After doing research on this footage for years, I can say that imho it is authentic. If you are smart, you should read Jeff Meldrum’s book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. It talks and goes into great detail about the PG footage casting aside all doubts about it. And any of Loren Coleman’s books on Bigfoot.

    The people who made the Planet of the Apes costumes even admitted that they could never make a costume that elaborate.

    Another problem that someone pointed out above is that no one has ever been able to replicate the suit in this film.

    Also Sharon had a great points above and some others did as well who believe this film to be of an authentic and real zoological entity.

  30. watn6789 responds:

    An older Bob Heironimus not in a suit matches the famous turn pretty well.

  31. Hapa responds:

    The Patterson/Gimlin film is a classic, one for the ages. No modern film comes close to its jaw-dropping authentic look, something that would not be expected for a hoax, since with the passing of years technology and movie magic studios have become more advanced and elaborate than they would have been in the late 60’s (you would expect the best looking films to be modern, which, save for perhaps the Erickson project film and photos (still pending there), just isn’t the case). Just look at all the doofus-youtube yarns of bigfoot out there and compare to this vid and you can see immediately why this film has stood the test of time. I dare say that if the creature in question was filmed in Africa, Asia, or the south Pacific (Indonesia) it might have aquired either more acceptance or even perhaps several major, major mainstream scientific investigations to thew region where it was filmed (you never know).

    The Patterson film should never be forgotten or discarded. Its among the best of the best pieces of evidence we have. Having said that, this film must also be a reminder of the cold hard truth: no matter how good the film or photo, no matter how unlikely it is that it is hoaxed (Only blind arrogance and ignorance and grasping for straws has kept the film from being on PBS nature films instead of Destination Truth and Monster Quest, etc), it will never ever be enough to prove to the scientific community that the animal, or any other cryptid, is real. If it was, it would have been accepted as proof (though it would not perhaps be taxonomically named until a type specimen was produced, either body or drawing, or if indeed they might have viewed the film back then as a type specimen itself, though I doubt it.). Only a body, parts of one, or a live specimen will do that.

    I have actual respect for this film, as opposed to the vast ocean of smelly junk we have today. It makes me wonder why we have not have more P/G quality films since then. Could the animals have moved up north from the Bluff Creek area or up further into the mountains there due to global warming? Was the animal going extinct at the time? If so (ultra-extremely doubtful), what do we make of all the other sightings? And will the film and pics from the Erickson Sasquatch the Quest doc turn out to be as good or better?

    And will the animal ever be proven?

  32. Wendigo Truth Force responds:

    Best evidence for the Sasquatch hands down other than the collective body of documented tracks. Hands down. Almost no room for argument…….plenty of room for open minds……….

  33. gridbug responds:

    When I was in fourth grade we were shown a documentary that included the Patty footage; I have no idea what the documentary was about but I have a vivid recollection of being both frightened and mystified by the footage. I didn’t know what I was looking at, but I had an intuitive sense that it wasn’t a product of Hollywood. To this day I’m still not sure what I’m looking at every time I view that footage. The fact that to this day the footage has yet to be matched speaks volumes to its lasting legacy. Maybe we’ll never really know. And maybe it’s better that way.

    :)

  34. Rick689 responds:

    I guess my first question is, how do we “Stop” talking about Patty? Cryptokellie, thank you for providing a term for what I’ve been unable to properly describe. Tacit Knowledge. Not having all the fancy computer graphics and analysis facilities that the professional researchers do, all I’m left with is looking closely at an image, and asking myself, “What do I see?” The eye can be fooled, and mine has been, more often than I’d care to admit. But, even then there’s usually an alarm bell going off in the back of my mind that says, “You might want to rethink that.” One point I’d like to make about Planet of the Apes. The movie came out when I was a young teenager, and although I saw all the sequels in the theater, I never caught the original until quite recently. I’ve seen many a comment about how realistic the ape costumes are. When I finally caught the movie about 6 months ago, imagine my surprise when I realized that there were NO ape costumes! Remarkable head and face appliances, gloves, and some arm covering on the gorillas, but everyone was dressed in robes or other full body coverings. Absolutely nothing that even remotely resembled the image in P-G. This leads to a final point. When Hollywood produces a creature suit, they pay particular attention to the head and face, hands if they will be visible, because these are the things we tend to focus on. Detail tends to trail off the further down the body we get. Think about Chewbacca for a moment, from the shoulders down, he really is a walking carpet. Now take a look at Patty, calves, tendons behind the knee, back muscles, and shoulder movement, wonderfully detailed. But her hands and face, (as far as we can see), are rather nondescript. From the standpoint of a Hollywood FX costume, Patty is built upside down. Think about it.

  35. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Bindernagel has a cast 24″ long shaped like a ski, and indicates only about three inches are “slide”? Come on, that’s just silly. Which is it, does Bigfoot have a long skinny foot, or a big, robust one? Is it that easy to identify a specific bear or human by the size and shape of its footprint? I doubt it.

  36. soonerhunt responds:

    I completely agree with Rick689 costume designers back when this was filmed put all their work into the face appliance the hands and feet. The feet being completely static basically furry shoes. the first step to adding a musculature area in a costume that I remember was the bat suit from Batman but again all the muscles were and continue to be static and have no movement. Even if you look at Harry and the Hendersons a film made 20 years later and a costume that was as cutting edge as you could get in that day there was no muscle movement. Filmmakers have even abandoned costumes completely and gone CGI not only for costs but lets face it they look more realistic. The PG “costume” not only has muscular movement in the calves back and shoulders but the breasts which are not formed around a skeletal area move like…well lets face it like real flesh and tissue breasts.

    One last point there has been a lot of talk about how you could do “this or that” to a costume and create the same costume as on the PG film. If I were a seriously talented costume designer I would consider it a serious challenge. It’s been over 40 years later and there’s been lots of talk but no one has stepped up to the plate and hit a home run.

  37. Loren Coleman responds:

    “PoeticsOfBigfoot,” please be reminded that John Green, Roger Patterson, and others – long, long ago – told of the “Hairy Big Ape” – a True Giant of the area. Needless to say, footprints of these True Giants, as Mark A. Hall and I discuss in our book of the same name, are infrequently found, measuring 20-24 inches in length.

    It is good to see that Bindernagel is open to this “excluded” information that most Bigfooters do not wish to highlight.

  38. DWA responds:

    PoeticsOfBigfoot:

    Comments like that are one of the reasons it always pays to keep discussing the Patterson film. And the other evidence.

    Bindernagel and Meldrum both agree: legitimately plausible sasquatch tracks frequently exceed 20″ in length. They’re not the most common, but just like really big bears and tigers, they happen, and they’re not so rare. Three inches of slide in a 24″ track leaves a length I’ve seen exceeded in a number of trackways.

    Besides that: I’ll take the scientists over the amateurs every time when it comes to a scientific topic.

    And every scientist who has seriously engaged this topic is in agreement that the evidence – in particular this film – points to the reality of the animal.

  39. Troodon56 responds:

    Yes, we definitely should! In my opinion, this is the best piece of evidence for Bigfoot. I dare say, I even consider it CONCLUSIVE evidence, for the existence of the Sasquatch! I remember reading somewhere that, after the film was taken, it was sent to Walt Disney Studios. The people at Disney then made a statement that, if it was a hoax, then, it was a better hoax than even they could have possibly created! Also, if you just look at the film, you can clearly see that the creature does not walk like a human, at all. In my opinion, this video is a classic piece of evidence, for the existence of the Sasquatch, and that, YES!, we should CERTAINLY talk about it, here! :)

  40. DWA responds:

    watn6789:

    Um, just because Hieronymous can do it on pavement without the suit doesn’t mean that he could have done it perfectly, in what had to be a cumbersome suit, on a wild river bar, first take, with two guys on horseback bearing down on him.

    You know they followed the tracks for three miles, right? And never caught up? And that the tracks were deeper than the horses’? What was Bob eating? Lead?

    If it’s a human in a suit: makes no sense. A sasquatch could do it easily, from all the info we have on how they move and what they leave. Both of which, in the P/G case, square with many other encounters and track finds.

    You can’t say that one piece of the hoax, conducted under perfect conditions, shows anything.

    You must show, in detail, how the entire thing – all of it – got pulled off.

    There is not one attempt, in 45 years, to do this. To even try to.

    The skeptical “case” isn’t one. All the evidence points to the authenticity of the film. Period.

    We need to keep talking about this as long as people who know nothing about it come on here and call it fake. Education is important, and much of it is done here.

  41. jewpunxxx responds:

    This footage should be a point of discussion forever, even after it is proved to be real. Because I do not know about anyone else, but I have seen much more evidence to support its authenticity than it being hoaxed. From all the great literature to even a great monsterquest episode that focused on the footage. All of which were done by reputable people. The only times I have seen info for it being false have come from unreliable tabloid journalist shows. Like that laughable x creatures produced by the BBC. I really wish we could get some reputable effects people and cameramen to go out and faithfully recreate the footage as accurately as possible, noting how much time money, and experience one would need to do it using today’s standards than compare that to what it would have taken in 67. No one ever gets the face fur or anything about the look of patty right, that right there is enough for me to believe. I would also like to know exactly how much money everyone who has claimed to be involved in the hoax made from their claims, if they infact profited from hoaxing their involvement. I for one am glad you brought this up and tonight I am going to go back read and watch all the books and shows that give quality info about the film’s authenticity.

  42. scaryeyes responds:

    DWA

    I am on the fence about this footage – though I think its authenticity is by no means as certain as some here imply – but your objection doesn’t make a lot of sense. If (and note I said if) it was Bob Heironimus in the suit, there is no reason to believe Patterson and Gimlin actually did follow the tracks for three miles as they claimed. So whether or not Heironimus is capable of that is irrelevant. Nor, if this is the case, is there any reason to believe the footprints were actually made by the same creature we see in the film and not produced by another method (for this same reason, I am dubious about any assertions made about the creature’s height based on the length of stride seen in the footprints, such as those made by the National Geographic analysis).

  43. graybear responds:

    I think what really gets in most people’s craw is one simple thing that no one ever mentions; if the PG film had captured a quadruped the film would stand on its own as an example of a true unknown animal. But it doesn’t, it shows a biped, something which seems more human than ape. Something that walks like us, but isn’t us. The robotics people run into this sort of thing quite frequently, they even have a name for it: The uncanny chasm. According to studies we humans are programmed to accept something which is similar to us, but once it gets to be very like us but still obviously not us, we get jittery about it. That’s why the more humanlike robots get the more we seem to be a bit wary of them. The idea that the PG film hits this uncanny chasm by catching something which is like us but is clearly not us and so induces a sense of unease is not a big leap at all. People (and scientists and scoftiks are people) might be approaching the PG film with an inborn sense of unease which makes it more important than normal to declare the images untrue. In other people the affect might be the kind of obsessiveness a few posters have spoken in themselves. The female something in the PG film may be simply a little too ‘other’ for a truly rational assessment.

  44. DWA responds:

    scaryeyes:

    My position makes eminent sense as all available evidence supports it.

    No one, in 45 years, has shown one shred of evidence that anything other than P and G’s stated scenario happened. Nor that anything but that biped made those tracks.

    In science, you must produce evidence to back your assertion or it need not be taken seriously.

  45. DWA responds:

    Graybear: You may have something there.

    People keep backing hoax scenarios for which no evidence has turned up in 45 years; and they keep asking the proponents when *they* will stop the silliness. What is so farfetched about this animal being real? Nothing, really; there’s enough like it in the fossil record, and likely more to be found. Patterson and Gimlin’s word on the most mundane stuff is doubted, and they’re tossed off casually as being the engineers of the greatest hoax in history which this would be if it were one. Neither of them could have pulled this off, simple as that, and to say someone else hoaxed them compounds the difficulty beyond serious consideration.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And Pattyfake is maybe the most extraordinary claim I have ever heard, quite beyond the sasquatch’s being real.

    We don’t want it to be; so we blinker ourselves with an irrational fervor. It’s funny, actually.

  46. choppedlow responds:

    I side with the Dr. Either way, it proves nothing. And as much as I wan’t bigfeet to be running around the forests looking like fuzzy stumps, I’m not going to hold my breath. It’s a fascinating topic that draws you in all the way, and fast. But after a few years (7) of reading all the books, blogs, forums.. you come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing new and we are no closer to finding one than we were 20 years ago. Even with MMoneymaker making money off of people on public lands, bigfoot are as safe as ever to roam across the roads late at night. Every two years there is a new discovery, or video that finally shows a clear image of one, a body, or DNA…. And it all ends up meaning nothing. If they are real, they don’t need our help at all to protect them when we can’t even find one. Do you know what’s even more fascinating that the prospect of an 8 foot tall 700 pound hairy guy walking around in the woods with his family? A topic that has so much data and so called “experts” that devote their lives to these things, but no one can prove they even exist.

  47. Loren Coleman responds:

    Nearly 50 comments are here now. I’d say you guys and gals love to talk about the Roger Patterson-Robert Gimlin Bigfoot footage.

    What in the world is going to happen when the 50th year anniversary of this “film” occurs? Look for dozens of books, documentaries, conferences, celebrations and more during that milestone 12 month period!!

    The Vietnam War, hippies, and the Patterson-Gimlin evidence will merge in the memories. Few recall that the day after the P-G footage was recorded, the big news of October 21st was the tens of thousands of people that marched on Washington D.C. in protest of the Vietnam War. The Year 1967 was quite a 12 months: The Doors, Fairport Convention, Beatles, and Monterey Pop were the talk of the music world. The Six-Day War happened. The Boston Strangler went to prison. Che was killed. Evel Knievel crashed when attempting to jump the Caesars Palace Fountains in Las Vegas.

    It could be an intriguing time of 50th year anniversary remembrances in 2017.

  48. Redrose999 responds:

    I remember my first encounter with the Patty Film as a child, sitting in the family room while my sisters and I watched an episode of “In Search Off”. After that, I made it a thing to watch anything on it. It was fascinating and it scared the crap out of me. I can recall, being so afraid of it, I kept thinking bigfoot would peek into one of the first floor windows of our house. I’d shut all of the curtains and avoid going into the down stairs bathroom. LOL, I was a complete coward then, but what do you expect from an 8 year old?

    The image of Patty on that footage stayed with me for years, and I think, I was so scared because the image conflicted with my idea of how “animals” should look. It looked human, but moved like an animal. That swagger with those long arms and how it turns, just creeped me out.

    Back then, the film was a key part of any program on the subject in the media.

    I think the film’s effect on the social psyche was profound. As Loren pointed out, there were many events that were important, and in some cases, politically more important, yet do not reappear in our media and social conscience in the same way, The Patty film does.

    I have always felt that if people want to write it off as a hoax, they have to prove that it could, in fact, be hoaxed. No one has effectively proven that it could be, as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t mean no one will, but it seems at this point unlikely. If you want to prove it’s a hoax, you need more than just someone claiming to have done the job. You need physical proof, or at least a definitive, inarguable description of exactly how you could do it, and show me that it does accord with what we see in the film. In short — I want the suit, or at least a design for a suit that could have been made in 1967 for something less than a major military project. The history and social impact behind the film deserves that kind respect.

    With all that said, imagine being the Patterson family over the years. The film has drawn all sorts of attention, some of it good, and some of it frustratingly bad. The entire legacy must be socially stress full and emotionally upsetting to the family. From comments in the past, it is obvious, the families have found it tiresome and they’ve wanted to step away from this part of history. Correct me if I’m wrong but some of these folks claiming they’ve worn the suit have been family friends? I’m not sure on this. But I can easily imagine, in order too protect the family members that perhaps they came up with ways to step away from the Bigfoot community and the fame of the films. What a better way than create rumors of it being fake. In the end, it is a legacy to embrace, rather than deny or be embarrassed by, which would explain why Patterson’s Widow eventually allowed the analysis of the original film.

    Which bring me to the s

  49. TheForthcoming responds:

    I hope to see a book from you Loren someday, maybe about the year 1967 and not only it’s History in America and The World but also it’s implications Cryptozoology wise including the PG Film and anything else worth noting or writing about. Even a blog post on here would be good. Hope to still see you and others on around here in 2017! :)

  50. CryptoNY responds:

    I was always very intrigued by this film. Just look at the purported videos we have seen to date. Nothing compares in terms of detail and locomotion to study.

    The clincher was Bill Munns study which overlaid a human form over the Patty. None of the joint locations (IM index) matched up at all. If the hip joints were matched the knee joint locations were off, if the knees were matched up the hip joints were off. How does one explain this. It is impossible to fabricate joint placement. Let’s hear the skeptics perspective on this !

  51. DWA responds:

    choppedlow:

    “Do you know what’s even more fascinating that the prospect of an 8 foot tall 700 pound hairy guy walking around in the woods with his family? A topic that has so much data and so called “experts” that devote their lives to these things, but no one can prove they even exist.”

    This is a frequent, and very severe, overstatement of the time and money – the only two ingredients that count – devoted to this “search.”

    There have been two, count ‘em two, cryptid expeditions in history that had a chance of doing anything toward confirmation.

    One got us this film.

    Read about the other.

    Two. That’s it.

    And a bunch of inconsequential field trips.

    Nobody’s ever been involved in this on a full-time basis, or anywhere near, in the field, where the proof lies if it’s anywhere.

    And that’s gotten what everyone should expect.

  52. Kopite responds:

    Yes we should still talk about the PGF. It is a perfect example to hold up against the plethora of hoaxes, which do not look anything like it.

    With regards to Bob Heironimus, he has changed and altered his story more times than he has had hot dinners. One minute the suit was a smelly dead red horse with no metal or fasteners, he was wearing waist high waders and was barefoot inside the ‘costume’……….and the next minute the suit is a fake fur Morris suit with a zipper down the back, knee high waders and he was wearing his own shoes inside the ‘costume’.

    Bob Heironimus’s claims about the film site are equally impossible. Bob Heironimus claimed the creek was dry, the sand was white, that they were off the road a ways and were in a spot where nobody coming up the road could see them and Roger was filming from his horse shaking the camera.

    All of Bob H’s impossible blunders can be 100% disproven by the footage itself.

    In the actual footage we can see that:

    1. The creek is wet and flowing.

    2. That Roger Patterson was actually standing on the road when he started filming.

    3. That there is a clear unobstructed view from this road right across the clearing and over to the forested hillside in the background.

    4. That Roger’s camera position was low to the ground and much much lower than horseback level.

    What can we prove by all of this? Simple. That Bob Heironimus was never there at Bluff Creek. His claims read like a man who gets his information by what he ‘thinks’ he can see in the footage. Unfortunately for his claim, Heironimus didn’t study the footage close enough, particularly the almost never viewed opening frames where we can see the wet creek, the road and the rocky banks of the creek that Patterson quite clearly negotiated on foot.

  53. DWA responds:

    Kopite:

    “With regards to Bob Heironimus, he has changed and altered his story more times than he has had hot dinners.”

    And the funny thing about that is: people calling themselves “skeptical” swallow every iteration as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

  54. jewpunxxx responds:

    If anyone who is interested and has not seen bill munns video analysis of the footage you really should it was the best analysis i have ever come across and he figured out whatno one else realized that the lense used on the camera was not the standard lense, it was infact a 15mm wideshot lense and not the 20 that came with the camera. With this knowledge munn has produced the most precise measurements of the subject.the height of the creature using the measurements from the 15mm lense come to 7’2″-7’6″. He also created a series of heads and used the same camera and lense to gauge the most accurate head shape of the subject and came to the conclusion that if it were a mask that a humans head wearing the mask would have to sit so far back that he would not have been able to see out of the mask. If you wouldlike to see this analysis for yourself it is on monsterquest episode entitled critical evidence, season three i think. I do not know why this relevation has not been taken more seriously by any media sources to reignite any serious investigation into the subject. This is the best recent info that has come to light i would like to see any recent arguements against this film beinga real animal, because all the old ones have fallen to the wayside its too bad they have gotten the most publicity. This film needs some positive publicity along with all the great evidence out there now. I think we need to get a good high quality documentary going something where the right amount of time and care can be given to the subject and to going out to search for the creature properly, not just a weekend in the woods but a proper expedition.

  55. gridbug responds:

    Bill Munns was also prominent in the NatGeo American Paranormal: Bigfoot episode. Also, his Munns Report site has a lot of great information relevant to this topic.

  56. SweatyYeti responds:

    In response to jewpunxxx:

    If you read the latest, on Bill Munns’ Report website…(that gridbug linked to)….he has since backed-off of his finding, that the camera used a 15MM lens, and that Patty was 7′ 3″ tall. He is reviewing the photogrammetry analysis, at the moment.
    But he is working on some additional ‘lines of analysis’…that he expects will prove Patty to be a real animal.
    And…then there is the movement of Patty’s mouth, and eyebrows…which strongly indicate that Patty is a real, near-human being.



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

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



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.