Patterson-Gimlin Film Debunking Debunked

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 11th, 2013

From Brian Brown of The Bigfoot Show:

I don’t recall ever having heard of the TV show Making Monsters so I obviously didn’t know they tried to tackle the Patterson-Gimlin figure. And by “tackle” I mean “show to be fake” since the star of the show, effects maker Ed Edmunds, says, “I’ve been wanting to debunk this bigfoot thing forever.”

The set-up is this: Our old friend Phillip Morris apparently goes around and tells people what a load a hokum the PGF is based on how he made the costume and all. In order to make his little talk more effective, he reached out to Edmunds to make him a “state of the art” bigfoot suit. Think about that for a second. This is the guy who made the original. In 1967. But to help demonstrate how the PGF figure is a dude in a suit, he turns to a professional costume and effects manufacturer to make him one using 21st century technology and techniques. OK. This thing is, I bet, going to be pretty awesome.

Here’s the PGF-related segment from the show:

Pretty cool costume. Too bad it looks absolutely nothing like the PGF figure. Hell, it’s not even half as good as the Jack’s Links sasquatch. Also, note the size of the head on the thing and consider that in the context of what Bill Munns told us on BFS 50: The head has to be huge in Edmunds’ suit to fit the head of an actor. The head of the PGF figure is freakishly small.

Here’s some screen caps showing the suit in action.


Read the rest of the article here.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

25 Responses to “Patterson-Gimlin Film Debunking Debunked”

  1. Duncan Hopkins via Facebook responds:


  2. David M. Prus via Facebook responds:

    So it’s a really GOOD ape suit 😉

  3. cryptokellie responds:

    When did this program air? That costume as a recreation of the P/G Bigfoot figure is a joke. It’s not even a good Bigfoot costume except for dark nights and Halloween. The arms and legs are not tapered or naturally muscled as in the P/G footage. Also we have the “Wookie look” suit with long hair flowing everywhere. The Bigfoot figure in the P/G footage does not have long hair anywhere, the coat is short, dense and sleek. Why would anyone think that this costume recreates the P/G footage? But really, I’m just preaching to the choir here. In all honesty, and I’ve been watching people trying to provide recreations of the P/G film for over 40 years and there has not been one that is even close…why is that I wonder?

  4. Ploughboy responds:

    Is it any wonder progress is excruciatingly slow? We dumb. Nothing much else you can say.

  5. Dr Kaco responds:

    Yet another debunk of Patty fail. “Messing with Sasquatch” Bigfoot looks way better than this silly Halloween Costume. We hear of make-up Artist telling how the P-G film is a hoax, nothing more than a suit….OK so why has NO ONE made one that even comes close to replicating it? Not saying that the P-G film is 100% authentic but the more these nay Sayers come out with their take on it, the more the darn thing in the P-G film looks real!! ;p

  6. skimmer responds:

    There was nothing in this video that would convince me that a costume was used in the Patterson footage. On the contrary, it added to my belief that what was filmed by Patterson was not a man in a suit.
    If the skeptics were trying to debunk all bigfoot sightings then I would expect “artistic license” to be applied. However, they are trying to debunk the Patterson footage–in which case, the artist cannot use his own imagination when building a suit. He must use the footage to be his guide without variation. In other words, the goal is not to make a convincing bigfoot costume, but rather a bigfoot costume that looks like the thing in the PG footage. Considering the lack of detail in the PG film, I would imagine the process of building a suit that matches the creature is comparitively easy–you don’t need gums, teeth, mouth, eyeballs, wrinkles, nostrils, lips, ears–even a defined nose, because they don’t appear in the footage. You don’t even need separate fingers and toes. All you need to do is build the simplest suit, have any guy off the street walk a course while wearing it, and film it with an old camera. That’s supposedly how it was done in the first place. What’s so hard about doing that again?

  7. guyzonthropus responds:

    That whole thing is, quite simply, insulting…..

  8. DWA responds:

    Well, when one is in denial, anything – and as this shows us, ANYTHING – that supports that denial is cool.

    YOU made the suit. And you are reaching out to someone ELSE to make the suit. This doesn’t smell to highest heaven, precisely, how?

    What people will swallow when they are in denial either surpasses human understanding or, no wait, is part and parcel of it.

  9. Alamo responds:

    First thing you notice is that the arms of the suit go out at an angle from the body (like a fat guy). This is because shoulder pads can increase the appearance of the shoulder width, but the arms must still attach at the same spot despite the increased width across the top of the shoulders. Patty has a wide waist and hips, but her shoulders are also proportionately wider and her arms attach at the ends of the shoulders rather than somewhere in the middle.

    Second are the mechanics of the walk, the heels don’t kick back like Patty, the toes are kicked forward… like a human. This particular aspect of the gait was addressed in depth in the “Degrees of Separation” articles a while back.

  10. Peltboy25 responds:

    Alamo, you nailed it on the proportions. In fact, the best analysis I’ve ever heard of the PG footage is from artists who are familiar with human proportion. When you look at where each appendage would have to be anchored in order for Patty to be a man in a suit, you would need a man who is over 7 feet tall, 5 feet wide at the shoulders, and possessing an oddly-proportioned head/neck area (so as to effectively wear a mask and head/shoulder covering to give the look seen in the film). It’s not the muscle tone, the texture of the hair, or any other variable that convinces me. It’s the proportions of the moving parts in relation to each other.

  11. PhotoExpert responds:

    A HUGE FAIL at debunking the PG footage. It still stands the test of time.

  12. sasquatch responds:

    Stupid people will believe these liars.

  13. DWA responds:

    Forgot to mention.

    If memory serves me, didn’t Morris recently make a suit that – no winner itself – was quite a bit better than this one…?

  14. corrick responds:

    As someone who thinks the P-G film was a hoax, I have to agree with every other poster so far. And about all the other P-G “recreations” I’ve ever seen. They’re always terrible and look nothing like the P-G film. It’s as if these “artists” always confuse “Harry & the Hendersons” with the original P-G footage. The P-G film was shot from a distance. Given the first generation pixel information on the film all closeups will forever remain blurry. So how hard can that be to replicate?

    I can only offer one explanation. I’m reminded of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Blvd, when she says “Mr. DeMille, I’m Ready for My Close-Up.” That whenever anyone makes P-G “recreations” the artist involved wants to showcase their talent and the producers only care about ratings so neither is really interested in an “accurate” costume. And its not exactly like any of these recreations have been attempted by National Geographic. My take about all of them is if you see a clear close-up of the face you know it’s a 100% joke and all about the money. Hoax or not, no clear picture of Patty’s face will ever appear. Not enough pixal information in the film.

    Absolutely agree, a laughable “recreation” of the P-G Patty.

  15. Goodfoot responds:

    Peltboy, if memory serves, Patty was determined to be in the 6 – 61/2 foot range, not 7 plus.

    Still… these guys are real JERKS. UGH. Actually, they’re arrogant a******s, but I can’t say that here. But many of you were thinking it, I’m sure. I don’t know of anyone who’s ever heard of this show. Now we know why.

  16. Becho responds:

    Goodfoot, The Bigfoot in the Patty film was determined to be 7’3″, give or take an inch. The method they used to determine that is used in forensic investigation and is widely accepted as accurate. You need to know what camera was used and what lens.

    There was a leading builder of primate suits I believe his name was Boukauchka (sort of phonetically spelled) or something like that. In 1970 he viewed the P/G film and was asked if he thought it was a suit. He said “No, I don’t think so.” His reasoning was that if it was a suit it would be very difficult to build. You would have to glue the hair on a very big person. It would take at least ten hours to put on. He completed the interview by saying “If it is a suit, it is the best one I’ve ever seen.” That from a man who was famous for building the primate costumes since the 1930’s.

    So there is a good reason why it hasn’t been dublicated.

    If it was built, who built it and why weren’t they making a ton of money in Hollywood where this man was working?

  17. eyeofstrm responds:

    If this idiot considers this a home run I shudder to think what he considers a strike out. The American Paranormal episode on Bigfoot is one of the best shows I have ever seen on the subject. They determined Patty to be @8ft. tall. Cannot find it on line to buy anywhere though. Maybe the Govt. confiscated it and destroyed it.

  18. alan borky responds:

    Bleedin’ ‘ell!

    Isn’t this costume infringin’ Hulk Hogan’s image rights?

    An’ didn’t Patty have a massive pair of *b-doi-oi-oi-oing!* honkers not a titchy pair of leathery baby socks?

    The guy who made the bleedin’ thing looks more like Patty than the suit.

    Based on its boobs maybe we should call this suit Flatty.

  19. Piltdown responds:

    Color: Wrong.
    Face: Wrong.
    Physique: Wrong.
    Fur: Wrong.

    Grade: F-

    Phil, Ed, see me after class.

  20. Dr Kaco responds:


  21. DWA responds:

    Piltdown: I second Dr Kaco.

    Goodfoot: I agree. The first sentence out of Edmunds’s mouth had me thinking: this is one of those folks you love to see screw up. He, Penn and Teller could have a great time together. Just don’t include me.

  22. Peltboy25 responds:

    Wouldn’t this be a great challenge for the show FACE OFF? Have the aspiring Hollywood makeup artists do the best Patty they can. Winner is the one who best emulates her.

  23. smwmustang responds:

    So why would he not of studied the footage and tried to make something at least similar…it is a cool show, but it does not even look like a bigfoot.

  24. MattPriceTime responds:

    I have to agree that it seems fishy to me. Because in my book if you are tying to sell me this is a hoax, your theory shouldn’t have so many jumps of faith that makes me feel like a conspiracy theory.

    Something so well made that’s puts the best of the best from the time in debate, should be out there documented to be found.

    And again if he built the original suit that was so damn well in less technological times, he can’t reproduce it on his own with better technology?

    I know guy with history of conjobs just finding a bigfoot when he needed it is suspicious….but said man having a super impressive costume compared to the Hollywood films of the time that can’t be found or replicated years later with better technology, sounds like just as much to swallow as what they are trying to debunk.

  25. The Timsta responds:

    The first thing I notice is that the suit wearer is looking out from behind the suit to such an extent that you cannot see his eyes properly. As has been said, all this does is serve to show the genuineness of the Patterson Gimlin footage, which has been even further substantiated with modern digital enhancing techniques of that 1967 film footage. Things like the mammary glands that move naturally, the sinews evident in the right armpit, the hernia bulge in the lower right front thigh evident upon the weight of the right leg on the ground, the normal appearance of the eyes, [not looking out through a suit] the hair presenting as natural, being less in places you would expect and heavier elsewhere, the footprints revealing a very heavy creature, far heavier than a big man in a suit.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.