Patterson Film Stabilized

You can either take these people for their word, or not. Here's another close encounter...www.youtube.com...

i remain of the opinion that the film is legit, ie it depicts a very large, very real ape-like creature.

originally posted by: shasta9600
You can either take these people for their word, or not. Here's another close encounter...www.youtube.com...

I don't doubt that amongst such claims, there are some people who are being quite sincere and honest (though it also appears to be a haven for good old fashioned "story tellers"/ "bull--t artists"). Where we would differ is in what the reason for such an occurrence might be. That cause isn't an unknown biological species of massive Apes (or three) basically sneaking around the edges of suburbia, uncatalogued. It requires other explanation, from areas of science that bigfoot advocates are completely set against acknowledging, let alone pursuing. Yet unlike bigfoot, they do exist.

Unless you wish to go with the paranormal. While I don't believe it either (at this stage) I find it understandable why people might think this way.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: shasta9600
You can either take these people for their word, or not. Here's another close encounter...www.youtube.com...

I don't doubt that amongst such claims, there are some people who are being quite sincere and honest (though it also appears to be a haven for good old fashioned "story tellers"/ "bull--t artists"). Where we would differ is in what the reason for such an occurrence might be. That cause isn't an unknown biological species of massive Apes (or three) basically sneaking around the edges of suburbia, uncatalogued. It requires other explanation, from areas of science that bigfoot advocates are completely set against acknowledging, let alone pursuing. Yet unlike bigfoot, they do exist.

For those who are being honest, what is your idea for what they're seeing? What's the other explanation that is required?

Here's Dr. Jeff Meldrum explaining what he considers to be some of the best evidence, in the footprints and tracks, and how in many of the best ones found,...in his professional opinion, they would be impossible to hoax. He makes that statement at about the 0:26 minute mark, if you want work back and around from there www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: shasta9600
For those who are being honest, what is your idea for what they're seeing? What's the other explanation that is required?

It relates to the only two genuinely academic studies (ie. published by academics/scientists in mainstream peer reviewed journals) ever carried out on the bigfoot phenomena. One is the Sykes study, where he looked footers in the eye and had to tell them that after going to great trouble to procure the best they had, they were simply mistaking mundane creatures like racoon, for bigfoot. This is quite relevant.

The other is a study by a professor of psychology, who found a strong correlation to certain psychological disposition and belief. Also a related proclivity to (subclinical levels of) dissociation, re sightings. This was amongst otherwise normal healthy people, without taking into account the "story tellers" and those that, like every other section of society, will have psychological problems.

There are two parts to this phenomena. One is the predisposition to belief and its propagation. This is a cultural, sociological phenomena where, for whatever reason, people choose to believe and promote this subject similar to a religion. While it is a world wide phenomena, it traditionally proliferates more so in stone age and 3rd world type societies and there are, unsurprisingly, some strong correlations between such societies and the USA.

It is worth asking why, when such a large proportion of a modern society require a belief in mythical monsters? Why people would reinterpret mundane phenomena (either consciously, or unconsciously) and credit it to something that doesn't exist (outside of their imagination)? There is at least on "professor" who seems to be doing quite well out of misinterpreting everything he can as indicating bigfoot. The study shows a tendency towards ADHD and depression (subclinical levels) with both affecting credulity and resulting beliefs (bigfoot).

It's obvious by now there is nothing to be found, but what is more intriguing is the way researchers always stop short, even when given an opportunity to acquire proof. It looks like many of them don't really believe it themselves and are partaking in a type of game. Similar to people who turn up in medieval armour etc and pretend to do battle, the difference being, they don't try to pass themselves off as genuine medieval knights.

Bigfoot research is part recreational hobby, part religious type belief. This "role playing/game" type aspect is very abley displayed by the "habituators" who interact with 'footy every other day (usually on the edges of rural/ suburbia), yet "have no interest in proving it to anyone". This is obviously because they can't and at best, are interacting only with their vivid imaginations.

I know of one leader of a long established and respectable research group (who I feel is honest) that knows when bigfoot are there. This is because they make their eyes glow to acknowledge the researchers. This isn't really sounding like a subject relevant to zoology. Not much about bigfoot does (nothing that has genuine evidence).

As to dissociative states leading to bigfoot sightings, this can happen to anyone. While conditions already mentioned can affect this, many others can also (simple tiredness for example). It is a subject usually ignored completely, simply because people are sure that what their own eyes have shown them, must be real. Understandable in a way.

Yet it belies a great ignorance in the cognitive and perceptual processes of human beings. Our eyes don't really show us anything, per se. It is only ever the brain's interpretation, that we see. This happens at subconscious levels before we get any image and is what most of the brain's resources go to. There is much that we "see" every day, that doesn't even rely directly on outside stimulus (photons etc). Our brain simply places the image there, the most likely image of what is most likely to be there, often from stored memory. It saves resources. The possibility for a slip twix the cup and the lip is always there.

In short bigfoot is a cultural myth phenomena (similar to Icelandic Elves) sustained mostly by hoaxes and nonsense and a need to believe, with occasional genuine sightings (as in, the people aren't really lying) in a reciprocal relationship. It's a shame such people will often end up becoming besotted with chasing a myth, that will never really be found (and which sometimes impacts their lives quite negatively). Rather than looking within to find what might have been happening in their lives at the time, that might have played a part.

There are only two possibilities for something that appears, then disappears into nothing, leaving no real trace that they exist. Either cultural mythology/psychology or if not, it hints at a genuine paranormal aspect to existence.

graduatestudent.ucmerced.edu...

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

www.csicop.org...

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Munns shows this blowup of his 2009 scanning of the film, so I'm hoping it wasn't retouched. The Morris suit, made well before the Munns scans seems to match the face extremely close. Keep in mind Morris is showing a replica of the suit he made for Patterson, so I color corrected the fur to match what he supposedly sold him.

Keep in mind if Morris made the suit, there would be variations in his sewing work. Things that might make the head more peaked in the Patterson suit than the one he shows at his museum.

Look at the nose, the cheeks and the lower lip. It's uncanny how close it looks to the Patterson bigfoot.

The breasts in the Morris suit are also in the correct location. How could Morris even know the location since the Patterso film was so poor in quality for the DVD and other displays up until the Munns film scanning.

I watched some interviews with Bob Heironimus and he demonstrates the walk. His walk is seemingly a dead ringer for the Patterson bigfoot walk. Bob has an unusual lumbering gate in his walk. Even the guys doing motion capture as the bigfoot in "The Truth Behind: Bigfoot" documentary couldn't replicate the "walk" like Bob did. And they were practicing it.

Absolutely. Between this shot and the muscle suit above, it's case closed on the PG film. Hoax, all day long. A very good one, a very profitable one. But a hoax nonetheless.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: QueenofWeird

you've brought up some good points. i believe those breasts to be one of the main signs that the footage is legitimate along with the creature. if someone were going to hoax a bigfoot, as has been done in the past, it's always male, and has never, ever had breasts. i imagine it would be a whole lot easier and simpler to try and replicate a male bigfoot because the lack of breasts is one less component to try and get right and be convincing enough. so leaving them out all together would avoid adding something to probably whats going to be one of the most stand out and visible parts of the body that the hoaxer would have to replicate accurately.

also, i've heard from a native american medicine women that bigfoot does bury their dead, they do mate much like we do in terms of having a partner that they will mourn if lost. additionally, i've read and heard experiencers talk about seeing multiple bigfoot at once. like a father/mother & son/daughter, up to 3 of them together at the same time.

from everything out there you can garner that Bigfoot is extremely intelligent, extremely quick, built for quick travel over steep, rocky and treacherous terrain. they also have a vocal and non-vocal communication system. there's even some evidence out there of Bigfoot using markers for their territory. Not to mention that their sense of smell/hearing is off the charts. And I believe that to be one of the main reasons why they are so effectively elusive. They can smell our un-natural scents from long ways off and can hear us bumbling around in the woods as well. They are gone before we get close. Unless they get curious, in which case people might get lucky and see one. Also if they are aggressive/defensive over something they can be more confrontational, but for the most part they seem to have a non-confrontational disposition.

For me, the breasts are the mark of a thoughtful hoaxer. Want to keep people from saying it's just a man in a suit? Give it a set of boobs. Now instead of a completely obvious hoax, the issue of supposed breasts distracts from the image and gets the believers talking about the boobs instead of the other glaring failures of the suit. I really did think this *might* have been legit when I was a kid, but seeing it stabilized just utterly crushes it for me. Completely obvious that it's a guy in a suit. RIP Sasquatch, lol...

originally posted by: jaffo
For me, the breasts are the mark of a thoughtful hoaxer. Want to keep people from saying it's just a man in a suit? Give it a set of boobs. Now instead of a completely obvious hoax, the issue of supposed breasts distracts from the image and gets the believers talking about the boobs instead of the other glaring failures of the suit. I really did think this *might* have been legit when I was a kid, but seeing it stabilized just utterly crushes it for me. Completely obvious that it's a guy in a suit. RIP Sasquatch, lol...

Notice the breasts in Patterson's 1966 illustration?

originally posted by:QueenofWeird

you've brought up some good points. i believe those breasts to be one of the main signs that the footage is legitimate along with the creature. if someone were going to hoax a bigfoot, as has been done in the past, it's always male, and has never, ever had breasts.

An illustration from "True" magazine 1959 (that Patterson plagiarised for his own book) on left (notice the breast), Patchwork Patty in the middle, the Roe encounter illustration (1955) on the right.

a reply to: crazyeddie68

the creature in the film has been measured as standing at least 7'3" tall.

I realise why you didn't verify this claim. That's because there is nothing that has ever verified it. Munns once claimed the creature could either be 4'8" or 7'4", depending on which lens was used. He later retracted all height estimates, realising there was no way to measure it. This didn't stop 'footers and people like Meldrum clinging to the taller of Munns estimates.

Like all good "pseudo science", once a claim is made it never goes away, it simply gets debunked/rehashed eternally. In fact Meldrum was pulled up at a bigfoot convention for making this bogus claim. Instead of correcting himself, he beat around the bush and came out with the usual derogatory "peanut gallery" comments (not very becoming for a Professor).


This can give us a "ballpark" estimate. At the distance Patty was filmed re the distance the foot might be away from the trunk, foreshortening effects will be negligible for our purposes. It shows Patty at 5'4". Though I agree it is probably wrong, simply because the track casts were not of this foot (they were fakes by Patterson).

If they are, Patty is, at the most (allowing for slouching) somewhere around 6' tall. Which means it is around the same height as millions of normal humans, including Bob Heironimus. The only person who has gone on record publicly and laid any (largely) verifiable claim to be "Patty". Who knew both Patterson and Gimlin (they were good freinds), appeared in other works by Patterson and whose horse Gimlin was actually riding during the filming................

Another thing. Bob Heronimus, the supposed suit wearer, has a right glass eye. Notice how the bigfoot creature completely turns his head toward Patterson. Bob would have to turn his head completely toward Patterson to see if he was getting what he needed and to actually see Patterson. So, if Patterson instructed him to look at the camera, Bob would have to completely face Patterson to see him, like the bigfoot does.

I would expect an animal that was secretive, and being approached by 2 people on horses wouldn't just casually look over and keep walking at the same pace. It would glance at the subject and bolt off. If bigfoot are so slow and casual like "Patty" we'd be seeing them all the time.

As for people still thinking they see musculature, you are seeing a baggy suit that is bunching up and releasing the fabric as he walks. It doesn't remotely look like muscle under fur at all. Before you discount my opinion, just watch a few gorilla videos on YouTube and go back and watch the footage of "Patty" again and you'll see what I mean. Also, keep in mind that Morris, the supposed suit maker, says there are some small football pads on Bob to beef up his shoulders.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Another thing. Bob Heronimus, the supposed suit wearer, has a right glass eye. Notice how the bigfoot creature completely turns his head toward Patterson. Bob would have to turn his head completely toward Patterson to see if he was getting what he needed and to actually see Patterson. So, if Patterson instructed him to look at the camera, Bob would have to completely face Patterson to see him, like the bigfoot does.

I would expect an animal that was secretive, and being approached by 2 people on horses wouldn't just casually look over and keep walking at the same pace. It would glance at the subject and bolt off. If bigfoot are so slow and casual like "Patty" we'd be seeing them all the time.

As for people still thinking they see musculature, you are seeing a baggy suit that is bunching up and releasing the fabric as he walks. It doesn't remotely look like muscle under fur at all. Before you discount my opinion, just watch a few gorilla videos on YouTube and go back and watch the footage of "Patty" again and you'll see what I mean. Also, keep in mind that Morris, the supposed suit maker, says there are some small football pads on Bob to beef up his shoulders.

And especially notice the horribly fake butt pad. It never moves an inch. If those were real glutes, they'd be doing A LOT of work and they would be the most obviously moving muscle Don't believe me? Go Google women in thongs walking down beaches. See that movement? Yeah, it's completely and totally lacking here. Because that butt pad is a lousy fake.

Did anyone post a video of a walking gorilla? Maybe for comparison?

Don't like to jump into the middle of a thread, but I haven't had regular internet.

m.youtube.com...

Someone mentioned that it took Bob Heronimus (supposed man in suit) fifty years to recreate the suit. After fifty years you'd think he'll be able to atleast match the color of the creature. If it really was him in the suit, then it would've been the biggest project in his life. You'd think he would atlast have some sort of left over fur material, pictures, drawings, etc to claim bragging rights in the future. And easy for almost anyone who wants it badly enough, the analyse the video frame by frame to reconstruct a constume (took 50 yrs) and practice to walk like the creature frame by frame. He was a friend who outlived the other guys, perfect way to start making claims and rack in some cash because dead man can't counter claim.

originally posted by: Richsac89
Someone mentioned that it took Bob Heronimus (supposed man in suit) fifty years to recreate the suit. After fifty years you'd think he'll be able to atleast match the color of the creature. If it really was him in the suit, then it would've been the biggest project in his life. You'd think he would atlast have some sort of left over fur material, pictures, drawings, etc to claim bragging rights in the future. And easy for almost anyone who wants it badly enough, the analyse the video frame by frame to reconstruct a constume (took 50 yrs) and practice to walk like the creature frame by frame. He was a friend who outlived the other guys, perfect way to start making claims and rack in some cash because dead man can't counter claim.

I simply assumed that making it a different color was done so that the two suits and any footage created by use of the new one would not be confused with each other in moving forward.

originally posted by: Richsac89
Someone mentioned that it took Bob Heronimus (supposed man in suit) fifty years to recreate the suit. After fifty years you'd think he'll be able to atleast match the color of the creature. If it really was him in the suit, then it would've been the biggest project in his life. You'd think he would atlast have some sort of left over fur material, pictures, drawings, etc to claim bragging rights in the future. And easy for almost anyone who wants it badly enough, the analyse the video frame by frame to reconstruct a constume (took 50 yrs) and practice to walk like the creature frame by frame. He was a friend who outlived the other guys, perfect way to start making claims and rack in some cash because dead man can't counter claim.

Heironimus (the only person ever to make a legitimate public claim to be "Patty") didn't recreate the suit.

He also makes no money out of it. Unlike Gimlin who makes money for appearing at bigfoot conventions and who sued Patterson's widow shortly after he passed away, for his share of the film's profits.

Wonder why Gimlin doesn't sue Bob H? He doesn't have to prove Patty wasn't fake, he doesn't have to prove it wasn't a hoax. Bob H. has to prove that Gimlin was involved in and had knowledge of the hoax. If he wasn't involved, had no knowledge of it, then why not? He had no problem sueing Patterson's widow.

Why does Gimlin refuse all requests to be interviewed by skeptics of this film? Unlike Bob H. who has fronted 'footers many times in genuine unrehearsed interviews. Why is it that Bob H. has said he would partake in a joint discussion with Gimlin, yet Gimlin won't?

Gotta make you wonder when the person (de Atley) who financed Roger Patterson's bigfoot expeditions, formed a company to market the film and obviously knew him quite well, has absolutely no belief that bigfoot exists.

Wonder why that would be? Perhaps he knows a little more than he has ever (publicly at least) let on?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
First time seeing this.

Looks like it could be a suit. Doesn't look like the ass of it moves at all, I'd think the ass would jiggle or move or something but it looks rigid, almost like it's not connected to the legs in a natural way.

Bingo! I've always thought that. No way would the buttocks not move independently and with the legs were it real. It's a shame it has always gotten so much support and that has been ignored.

No butt crack at all and the seam where the top part of the suit meets the legs is pretty obvious from the side.

I'm not opposed to the idea that one could exist, but this holy grail is not convincing in the slightest IMO. It looked like a suit when I first saw it in a theater in Utah where I grew up, narrated by Patterson and his buddy. They hit a lot of small town theaters then. Advertised for a couple of weeks and the seats were full as I recall. Everyone left pretty disappointed they had wasted a dollar, but being maybe 14 at the time I thought it was cool.

BOOBS!

Actually, I was thinking of the very large breasts on the creature. Now, maybe Bigfoots have a kind of built-in bra of some kind, but a human woman with breasts that proportionate size walking around unfettered like that would have them swinging and bouncing in all kinds of ways. Yet "Patty" strolls through the woods with barely a jiggle.

Something worthy of closer scrutiny, perhaps?