Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe the Bigfoot - serious, not follies is getting a little unwieldy so I thought I would submit this spinoff..


The discussion has had me looking at a lot of info, and one of the most intriguing things in Satsquatch lore, IMO is the

The Patterson-Gimlin Film


The drama surrounding the physical film itself, is as controversial as the contents of the video ..

Here is an interesting discussion about the film over at BigFoot Forums..

The Patterson Subject; a Professional Observation

It was started by Chris Walas, a Hollywood special effects wizard with an impressive set of credentials.
I believe that some of the more astute contributers over at Bigfoot Forums are making some impressive counterpoints to his analysis of the film..


Within the thread you will find some stills and clips of the PGF ( Patterson-Gimlin Film ) , which may not count for much if you don't have access to the complete film, but still I find them interesting..

It seems the only easily obtained copy is on the DVD

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (DVD)

Over at BFRO


I have always felt the film itself shows what seems to be a very real looking, Bigfoot type creature, and I am certainly not qualified to debunk it ( yet ) , though some that probably are, are satisfied they have. There is even someone who claims to be the " man in the furry suit "; but it is another story that appears to not be proveable..

The thread I pointed to, has some pretty good debunking of the debunking..

I am in the process of getting my own copy of the footage, and will comment more when I have had a chance to look at it..


The biggest problem I have with accepting this film as proof that Bigfoot exists, is that virtually nothing substantial emerged from the area in which the film was made.

I can't believe that such a convincing looking creature, vanished from the face of the earth, without a trace, unless it was a suit that was destroyed or very effectively hidden away.

[hodgy]

It looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by hodgy
It looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

My instinctive response is:

" It ' must ' be a man in a suit " ..

I think it ' looks ' like a furry critter, though..

You might take the time to look at some of the links I provided.

The stronger arguments against a hoax include some compelling arguments about sophistication of the suit ( if it is one ), proportions and movement of the animal..


When the special effects wizard pointed out ' obvious ' seams on the ' suit ', proponents quickly pointed out the same ' seams ' on live gorilas..

Another problem I have, concerns the way it walks..

Proponents claim the walk is apelike, and there is supposed to be some detailed analysies that support this. However, the walking looks very human like ( though a bit contrived ) , to me.

[hodgy]

Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by hodgy
Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit.

Sorry if I sounded berating..

Your opinion is welcome.. I was trying to get you to expound a bit more....

I should have made it a poll..


I'm sure " Bloke in a suit . " would garner a lot of votes around here...

[Thurkon]

I used to really love this footage when I was a kid. Back then, it looked so authentic. However, now that I work in a related media field, I don’t know…it kinda looks like a guy in a suit. I’ve been keeping track of that other thread, as well, and Chris’ input really started convincing me.

After doing a bit more research, here is my opinion why it is fake:

1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot…with a rented camera…at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.
2) Despite the claims of Footers, many independent experts have claimed that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.
3) The breasts, probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn’t 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur…an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length throughout the “creature�, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!
4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast. Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject…film is full wide the whole time.
5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thurkon,


All of your points are excellent, and all together make a very good case for a hoax..


Number 5, is my favorite..


I find some of the counter arguments interesting as well..

The anti-hoaxers suggest a very strong argument, is that no one has produced as good a ' hoax ' since..

I also like, ( an addendum to your # 3 ) that even though the Bigfootologists have presented detailed information about how Bigfoot ' must ' look, and based it on a sort of human - ape hybrid, they have to go with hairy breasts ( non existent in the primate community ) because of th PGF..

[LTC8K6]

I was awestruck by the P/G film when I first saw it and believed that it showed a real sasquatch.

Today I would say I can't tell what it shows.

How did they get such a good film of such an elusive creature, though? Why these two guys, one of whom already had a book out?

How did they manage to sneak up on "her" that way?

They could have run after her and caught up, it appears, but they didn't.

Bigfoot is supposed to be extremely difficult to get near and yet these 2 guys on horses just walk right into one.

She just sashays away as if she couldn't care less....and yet no one can find bigfoot.

Why didn't they shoot it? They were quite close and could have shot it in a leg easily.

On the other hand, if it's a guy in a suit, it's a heck of a good job.

The walk doesn't look right at all to me. It looks like a man trying to walk funny.

Overall, I would have to remain stuck at "I don't know".

[Thurkon]

Yeah, there are even more reasons I think this is bogus. Patterson and Gimlin were on horses. Horses. Clattering down a canyon on horseback isn’t the stealthiest approach. Why would they think this was the way to find a shy and elusive species? They’re lucky they found the one Bigfoot who doesn’t seem to care about humans. She looks like she’s out for a leisurely stroll.

And why is Ms. Foot just standing still when the film begins? After a few frames, she starts her saunter towards the forest. Why? Well, according to Bob Hieronimous (a.k.a the guy in the monkey suit), he was waiting for Patterson to say “action!� Too funny.

Also, Patterson wrote a book before this happened, and was out with Gimlin to capture Bigfoot with a rented camera. He must be the luckiest guy in the world!

You know, the reason this makes me so angry isn’t that people believe…it’s that Patterson probably perpetrated a hoax to make a few bucks, seemingly. OK. Yet, there are people who seriously believe this so strongly they will sit out in the woods for years and years…the non-hoaxers…dedicating a significant portion of their life pursuing a ghost, a goof. I hope disillusion is something those people can handle.

[LTC8K6]

In my suspicious mind, the agreement ahead of time not to shoot if they saw a bigfoot is indicative that somebody knew it was a guy in a suit.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me.

Me too.. No toes?


I'm sure there is a Bigfootologist explanation. Be interesting to hear what it is...

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is a post from the Bigfoot Forums discussion..

Sorry I can't link to the exact post, but here is the page..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...ic=8446&st=260


The post is about 2/4 down the page..

Quote:

OK, on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

So I was a bit off, he was said to have made prints a few days before for documentary footage.

Krantz also says in his book that Patterson took two castings immediately after filming Patty (the clearest right and left prints he could find). Then they went around and covered the prints they could see with bark to protect them. Nine days later Robert Titmus located the site and made 10 castings. Something interesting about his visit is that Titmus said that 4 of the tracks showed distinct evidence of being cast (I'm assuming plaster residue trimmings), but Patterson said he only did 2. No one knows what's up with that. Did someone else visit the site in those 9 days? Titmus also did a map sketch of the site based on Gimlin's and Patterson's and Patty's footprints so another person's prints would have probably been detected.

This last bit is just my 2 cents, There are only 952 frames in the PG film. It has been documented that he only had 2 minutes of film left and shot until he ran out on that fateful day, Oct 20th 1967. He can't film himself doing the casts because he is out of film.

Titmus also finds by following the prints that the Sasquatch walked up a hill and most likely sat and watched Patterson and Gimlin through a break in some dense folliage as they went about their work.

Cool!

My obsevations on these comments have no bearing on whether the creature is real or not, but I don't understand how someone can relate a story like this, in support of their position, and not see the problem with someone supposedly making a documentary and being caught with only 2 minutes of film in their camera !

[Skeptical Greg]

P.S. to my last post..



Actually the " 2 minutes of film in the camera " story, supports the notion that the encounter wasn't scripted.. ( at least not very well )

[Thurkon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
P.S. to my last post..



Actually the " 2 minutes of film in the camera " story, supports the notion that the encounter wasn't scripted.. ( at least not very well )

But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene?

[Bronze Dog]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thurkon
But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene?

Good question.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thurkon
But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene?

Very good point. It sounds like too convenient an excuse to not continue filming..

Again, very poor planning for someone who supposedly was making a documentary, and set out to specifically film the creature in an area it was known to visit..


I would be surprised if there is an unturned stone about this, over at the Bigfoot Forums.. I'll have to sift through some of it.

It is interesting...


What you see a lot of, is something to the effect of.....



A well planned hoax would not have such glaring defects..

The counter to this is..

A well planned hoax would include mistakes to shed doubt on a hoax..

[Hitch]

Something I don't know -- which may well have a good explanation, I'm just not aware of it...

How much film total was on the reel? What was the total running time, and what was film prior that only left 2 minutes of film once the creature was sighted? If I was going out with the specific intent of trying to get film of a Bigfoot, I'd like to think I wouldn't waste much film at all on non-Bigfoot scenes. I might want some establishing shots to show where the sighting took place, but those could easily be filmed after the encounter. (So you don't waste film on areas where you don't eventually spot a Bigfoot.

So, can anyone tell me what was on the rest of the reel other than the two minutes of Patty?

(Edited to correct typo -- we definitely do not want to get into "Bogfoot.")

[Nex]

Now, if this has been addressed I apologize, I'm just a lurker in the ongoing bigfoot extravaganza here, but:

Where did the rest of the film go? He said he only had two minutes left, but where's the previous footage he had already shot? He implies he had used up all but 2 minutes, so...

Sorry if the answer's 'round here somewhere, the BF threads are so long all the posts and conversations have begun to run together for me.


**ETA**

Aw, Hitch beat me to it!

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nex
Now, if this has been addressed I apologize, I'm just a lurker in the ongoing bigfoot extravaganza here, but:

Where did the rest of the film go? He said he only had two minutes left, but where's the previous footage he had already shot? He implies he had used up all but 2 minutes, so...

Sorry if the answer's 'round here somewhere, the BF threads are so long all the posts and conversations have begun to run together for me.


**ETA**

Aw, Hitch beat me to it!

The film hasn't been mentioned but in passing, in the threads here at JREF..


You can explore it ad nauseum here..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35



I'm sure the question has been asked, but I suspect film without ' PATTY ' in it, is beside the point as far as the Bigfootologists are concerned..

[Thurkon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hitch
Something I don't know -- which may well have a good explanation, I'm just not aware of it...

How much film total was on the reel? What was the total running time, and what was film prior that only left 2 minutes of film once the creature was sighted?

That's a good question. Belly up, Footers...don't make me go register on a Footer Forum. I'll get banned in a week.

What the heck else could he have shot, besides a few brief establishing shots and a few shots of the beginning expedition?

Quote:

Originally posted by Hitch
If I was going out with the specific intent of trying to get film of a Bogfoot, I'd like to think...

Now don't go bringing Bogfoot into this debate! That's a beastie for a whole different thread...

[Ducky]

Quote:

Originally posted by hodgy
Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit.

Again, I will admit it:

I was walking naked through the woods and was angry at being videotaped without my semi-annual waxing being done. I knowcked over some trees and ran away.

Sorry for the confusion, folks.


I don't give much credence to the bf lore anymore than I do nessie.

[Libertarian]

From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate!

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate!

That's good.. I missed it..

[Libertarian]

At first I thought it might be the old "two meters equals exactly X" conversion problem that Randi has talked about. But it's not. Wonder who came up with it?

[bruto]

With regard to the film time, it should be pointed out that if the camera was 16 mm., shot at 24 frames per second, that's 36 feet a minute, so there would be less than three minutes on a 100 foot roll of film; the short duration of the film might not be indicative of much except that they didn't bring enough film. If it was a rented camera, they might not have had much experience, which would also explain the poor quality of the shooting, and it's pretty common to underestimate the need for film.

I still agree it looks like a bloke in a suit, and of course if one were filming a bloke in a suit, one would make sure that the film quality was sufficiently poor to keep telling details out.

But even if it isn't fraud, amateurism, sloppiness and lack of preparation seem characteristic of bigfoot operations.

[RayG]

Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

• The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
• The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

RayG

[bruto]

Quote:

Originally posted by RayG
Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

• The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
• The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

RayG

But who measured the stride and how was it documented? I'm not saying it is fraud, but if it were, wouldn't it be expected that they'd fake that too?

[hodgy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate!

I work in the IT industry and often have to estimate things. I would normally add some contingency (say 33%) to my estimates. Based on that methodology bigfoot is probably about 5' 6".

[hodgy]

I think those 'realistic muscle movement' type of arguments are a bit like the face on Mars - if you look hard enough at grainy pictures you can find 'evidence' for all sorts of things.

[Nex]

Quote:

Originally posted by RayG
Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

• The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked

Didn't Chris Walas cover that in his commentary? Or did I misunderstand him (which is very possible considering I know nothing about costuming).

Quote:

Originally posted by RayG

• The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

Well that I can't help you with.

[RayG]

Quote:

Originally posted by bruto
But who measured the stride and how was it documented? I'm not saying it is fraud, but if it were, wouldn't it be expected that they'd fake that too?

In that case, they seemed to have thought of everything. Not only did they destroy the one-of-a-kind monkey suit that nobody's been able to duplicate or produce, but after the guy in the original suit makes his film contribution, they quickly set about faking tracks, ensuring they were far enough apart to make the stride appear difficult to replicate. I guess anything is possible.

RayG

[RayG]

Quote:

Originally posted by hodgy
I think those 'realistic muscle movement' type of arguments are a bit like the face on Mars - if you look hard enough at grainy pictures you can find 'evidence' for all sorts of things.

I was referring to the film, not still images, but I must admit, making out ANY details in a figure so small either requires very keen eyesight, or a vivid imagination.

RayG

[RayG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nex

Quote:

Originally posted by RayG
How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

Well that I can't help you with.

Neither can Groucho.

RayG

[case sensitive]

"They concentrated their search in the area near Bluff Creek"

Is that a clue?

[LTC8K6]

The bottom of the foot shot is really bothering me.

The foot still looks ridiculously fake to me.

It seems very odd that the leg would swing up that high so that the foot is pretty much perpendicular to the ground.

It's as if we are being shown the bottom of the foot on purpose.

When I walk, my feet barely come off the ground at all compared to Patty. You probably cannot see the bottom of my feet at all unless you put the camera on the ground.

Maybe I am thinking too much, but I am having trouble imagining any bipedal creature lifting it's legs that high while walking.

Except for a man in a suit showing me his big foot......

[LTC8K6]

Compare the left foot of Patty visible in the film to the cast of the left foot of Patty.

[RayG]

Here's a link to an interview with Daegling concerning bigfoot in which he too mentions Groucho Marx. Trouble is, when you walk with a compliant gait, it's hard to leave footyprints that sink 1 1/4" into the ground.

http://www.archaeology.org/0407/etc/conversations.html

To achieve the supposed stride length, I'm thinking the thing/person in the film was inspired by a combination of Groucho Marx and the Monty Python silly walk.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Some random thoughts on the above still:

(1) The animal seems to have black or dark gray fur. Bigfeet are supposed to have brownish hues, usually reddish-brown;

(2) The animal´s head seems to have a gorilla-like ridge, but most bigfeet artistic renders I saw so far do not show such a prominent ridge (that BTW, if I´m not mistaken, was developed to attach the powerfull jaw muscles needed to chew the plants gorillas eat - and that probably would be unecessary in bigfeet if their diet, as inferred by its researchers, is correct);

(3) The animas has a hairy butt. Again, if my memory is not failing, most primates (specially the bigger ones) don´t seem to have such feature. BTW, would such hairy butt fit with the supposed "butt print"?

(4) Arms/legs proportion seems a lot like human. I think a human walking with his/hers shoulders down and bent knees would look quite like that.

(5) LTC8K6 wrote that its weird that the "leg would swing up that high so that the foot is pretty much perpendicular to the ground." That is true, unless you are walking at a place with vegetation up to your knees (specially with fallen logs, etc.) and/or is muddy. In these cases it would resemble Monty Python´s silly walk. Someone in a gorilla suit, even if walking over a more open environment, with less obstacles would do the same (I think the person would not have an easy time to see low obstacles close or underneath).

(6) Yep, the footprint cast seems quite cheesy.

[aargh57]

Quote:

Originally posted by RayG
In that case, they seemed to have thought of everything. Not only did they destroy the one-of-a-kind monkey suit that nobody's been able to duplicate or produce,

They've never been able to reproduce a monkey suit? Forgive me, but that seems unlikely to me considering everything Hollywood has been able to do.

Quote:

but after the guy in the original suit makes his film contribution, they quickly set about faking tracks, ensuring they were far enough apart to make the stride appear difficult to replicate.

If you assume it's a hoax, why would you think that they wouldn't take the time to set out false tracks. Especially considering the time it took to mak an extremely convincing suit. Also, why would they have to do this "quickly"?

Quote:

I guess anything is possible.

RayG

Especially concerning bigfoot.