Patterson film has gone through a lot of discrimination, but...

There were a few things that were brought to attention though. Most Bigfoot fakes are using some sort of suit and most suits look all the same, they come standard with hair, muscular looking est.. But have you ever seen a monkey suit with breasts? I did some searching on Google for realistic costumes and could find any female monkey suits. This is because the stereotypical Bigfoot costume is of a big strong hair ape. If you look closely at the Bigfoot in the famous video you will see that it has breasts. What person would ever think of wearing a suit with breasts on it if they were just looking to fake a Bigfoot. Even the picture icon for this forum (Cryptozoology and Mythical Beasts) has the famous patterson bigfoot without breasts on it.

Also, when the head turns to look at the camera there is no bunching of fabric from the costume around the neck which would happen if someone wearing a suit. Suits are not attached to your skin and when if the person were to turn his head the lose fabric would bunch up. To me it looks as though the hair on this creature is attached to the creature. This brings me to my last observation.

If you look even closer you can see some of the leg muscles clench as the creature is walking away.

Although the creator of the film said it was a fake he could be lying to protect the truth.

Costume comparison:
www.bfro.net...

Slow motion Patterson film:
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 12-2-2007 by Nerve]

Any proof for either case will remain lost forever.

You may try 'search function' at the top of the page. Go back to 'the beginning'.

You'll see this has been greatly discussed... and still no diffinative answers.

Good reads though, especially if you are interested in the subject. Some threads have had a lot of work put into them, and also pose very valid points into the suit theories.

didnt the guy who filmed that admit to it being fake??

Originally posted by LaCokaNostra
didnt the guy who filmed that admit to it being fake??

It doesn't matter. There will always be people who insist it is real, despite all the proof to the contrary. Just as there are still people that believe the Earth is flat and Elvis, JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, et al are still alive.

It bears reiteration, though, that just because the Patterson film is a hoax does not prove an undiscovered North American primate does not exist. Bigfoot can be real while the film is a fake.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by dave_54]

From one of the many threads involving the same topic, not to mention multiple conclusions or theories.....

Posted by Gemwolf

Yes, there's some interesting questions raised surrounding Patterson, his financial circumstances, background, etc. But for every piece of evidence there will be a million sceptics with good debunking skills. Is any kind of photographic proof absolute? No. Only the real thing will satisfy the toughest of sceptics.

When we leave the politics and the sideshows on the sideline, and we look at the film, and the film alone, no one can point at the film and say with absolute certainty that it's a hoax. This film have been dissected frame for frame, grain for grain with little to indicate a hoax. It rather supports that it's a real creature and not a human in a suit.
Some testimonials from experts.

And the "suit" theory does not explain the "bump" on the front of the Bigfoot. Most investigators suggest that it's Bigfoot's breast or a baby Bigfoot - thus making this Bigfoot female. If Patterson made a suit - for a man - why would he put breasts on it?

There's a also the footprints issue that many investigators "ignore" or are even unaware of. In the original (complete and uncropped) film, Patterson "accidentally" captures two sets of prints. His own boot prints and presumably Bigfoot's prints. This tells us that Hieronimus - as the footprints does not support Hieronimus's story.

For every proof one way, it is matched equally for the other way.

As in the case of the PF, not everything ( including Hieronimus' story ) can be taken as gospel.

The saga will continue.

( ironically enough, SAGA is playing on the radio as I type)

didnt the guy who filmed that admit to it being fake??

I don't recall Roger Patterson ever admitting that it was a fake, and I don't think that Bob Gimlin has either. In my opinion, that footage is rather impressive. The breasts, the muscles, the way it moves.....these would all be extremely difficult to fake. And like someone has already mentioned, why would you add breasts to a fur suit ? Why would the "perpetrators" be stupid enough to do this, when it would considerably increase the difficulty of pulling off a successful hoax ?

It just doesn't make sense to me, and is one of the reasons why I find the Bluff Creek footage so fascinating.

I don't think their was ever any concrete evidence either way.

Hieronimus, to my knowledge, never had any evidence to back up his claims other than his word. No suit, no credible corroburating witnesses, no one coming forth saying they made the suit.

Hier's explanation for making the suit, I believe he said it was made from a gorilla suit they purchased from a costume store, never really held any merit due to the compexities involved.

Also, if someone else made the suit, wouldn't they want to come forward and take credit for one of the best special effects creations used to fool so many people. I would think the notoriaty itself would be worth some coin.

All in all, Heir has his word and Patterson & Gimlin had their footage.

In a game of 'Knify - Spoony', I'll go with the knife.

( knife being the tangible footage that has never officially been debunked )

Did anyone see the new documentary on the Discovery Channel recently?

dsc.discovery.com...

Two interesting points.

First they used an actor to try and demo the 'walk' of the creature and IMO, didn't come close. Bob Heironymus hit the stride, the turn and the forward lean dead on. Wonder why they didn't ask him to come on and be digitized? As usual politics stands in the way of progress.

The second thing is the suit they used didn't even come close to the quality of the suit (if it was a suit) in the original Patterson film. In fact, I've -never- seen any of the suits come close. I believe I've seen about five different attempts to make a suit.

The closest to a real looking suit, though still different from the Patterson film was the one one that Boston Rob Mariano wore on 'Sci-Fi Investigates'. Puzzling why they didn't try to duplicate the color and look and feel of the original, though. Why use an orangish color and a completely different configuration? I mean, to me, the first step in debunking would have to be to create an -identical- suit. Oddly the suit worn by Andre the Giant on the Six Million Dollar Man also looked fairly real, though, again, they did not try to duplicate the Patterson footage either.

The various costumes all look like fake suits, whereas the Patterson film does -not- look like a suit at all, even on very close inspection, especially the face and back. The only thing that looks suspicious on the Patterson 'suit' (again, if it is a suit) is the very white and flat looking bottom of the foot.

Thinking about it again last night the most glaring aspect that suggests that Gimlin and Patterson faked it was that they did not immediately saddle up and chase the creature. These were two tough trappers and outdoorsmen with horses and rifles. They would not have continued to film it walk away, they'd have chased it to the ends of the earth.

However, one might easily infer that they could not chase it, because they knew that the illusion (if it was) would disintegrate, because the 'actor' could not duplicate the creature running or jumping which it would have had to do had they chased and continued to film. Of course, conveniently they ran out of film (which is absurd), and I believe Gimlin said they followed it for a while. Had they -really- seen a Bigfoot, they'd have camped and tracked it and one of them would have gone back for more film, or they'd have shot the thing. I believe Patterson would have reasoned that an actual Bigfoot body would be a lot more profitable than a mere film. He'd have been driven to capture or kill it, but as I recall, they stayed behind and made casts of the footprints. This part, to me, is laughable. Imagine the great hunters not chasing and staying behind like geeks making plaster casts, .

At the very least they'd have gotten more film and filmed the traces the creature made going through the bush as they tracked it.

Anyway, when I saw Bob H. duplicate the walk, for me, the case was pretty much solved. However, I must say, I can't understand why no one has been able to duplicate or even replicate the 'real' look of the original suit. That's mystifying.

By the way, the biggest reason I think the Patterson film is not of a real creature is that I do not think the actions or movements of the creature they filmed are those of a wild animal, or an animal at all. The movements of an animal would be much quicker and more furtive, and dynamic.

I'm always conflicted with bigfoot.

The patterson film does have the breasts, muscles, and no signs of bunching or zippers, but there is also the strange reaction of a creature seeing a man on horseback.
There have been some very good footprints, and some unusual hairs found

The thing that always gets me is the breeding population issue. There would have to be 100's of these animals to support the population. Wouldn't there be lot more evidence ?

mountain goirillas were discovered in 1922 I think, so it is possible this primate exists, and zoology just doesn't have its first skeleton to prove it yet, but even secluded, intelligent, shy creatures like the mountain gorilla were eveuntually found

Like I said, I just can't make up my mind

I had already posted this in another thread so here it is...

I think the most possible reason why bigfoots could exist is do to the amount of undeveloped land still in North America. The gap between Notrthern California and southern British Columbia has massive mountain ranges with a low human presence. It is estimated that the population of bigfoots are anywhere between 3000 - 4000 (last time I heard) Even in other parts of North America it would be very easy to hide a small population like that, especialy since they don't seem to travel in packs.

I got this information from this movie which is one of the best films on bigfoot. They cover everything

Bigfoot / [videorecording] produced by 44 Blue Productions, Inc. in association with A&E Networks ; producer, James P. Taylor ; writer/editor, Rob Englehardt.

I wonder if they didn't chase after the female sasquatch, because I've always heard that whenever they came upon the creature, the horses got startled. So maybe it were the horses stopping the men from chasing after.

Originally posted by BSP2000
I wonder if they didn't chase after the female sasquatch, because I've always heard that whenever they came upon the creature, the horses got startled. So maybe it were the horses stopping the men from chasing after.

Good question. Of course Patterson gave some excuses about not wanting to confront, concerns that their mate would be around and that they had the film they wanted anyway.

All of these 'excuses' are not entirely dissuasive. I think a tough cowboy tracker in the 60s used to living outdoors would have kept tracking until he literally fell off his horse; then he'd have made camp. He'd have sent Gimlin for food and reinforcements.

They claim they 'lost' the trail in the heavy brush after tracking the creature for three miles, in one account I read. I simply don't buy it.

I agree with the poster above about the need for a stable breeding population. However, despite the large area of wilderness, 3K-4K individuals would still be hard to keep hidden, imo.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Badge01]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Badge01]

Of course, conveniently they ran out of film (which is absurd),

Why is it absurd ? Movie cameras didn't have the luxury of being able to play 90 minute, double sided Sony digital tape back in 1967. Based on those reels that my grandfather used in the '70s, they were barely more than three or four minutes long !