Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Man Claims He Wore Ape-Suit in Famous Patterson Film

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Bob Heironimus claims that he wore the suit in the controversial Patterson film which purports to show a bigfoot creature walking along a stream bed. This "confession" is to be published in a new book.

However:


Tom Malone, a lawyer in Minneapolis, called us Friday on behalf of Bob Gimlin, associate of the now-dead Bigfoot filmmaker. "I'm authorized to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."


You can read the full article at the link provided. I believe you must sign up to read it, however it is a free subscription.

www.washingtonpost.com...




posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Someone did wear the gorrilla suit, but it prolly wasnt this guy. He probably is just trying to get famous.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
What makes you think someone wore a suit? Its not that I dont agree with you, it is alot more likely that someone did, but I am curious as to what your reasoning is.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I thought a bunch of people proved it was fake?


Anyways, it just doesnt look real to me.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Well my dad wore a gorilla suit in Space Odessy 2001 i am not kidding.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I saw something on TV last year, a documentary about this and the guy showed the special shoes that he wore to make the prints and the suit that was worn in the film.

I have no idea what channel I was watching or the name of the show. sorry.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Thanks for your replies, I hadnt realized the film had been conclusively debunked. I guess I shall go a googling to see what I can find.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Weird, I already thought the footage had been debunked. Didn't the family reveal it was a hoax when the guy who made it died? It was part of his will to reveal this wasn't it?



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I glanced through a few sites, I havent found anything conclusively debunking it. John, are you sure you are not mixing up the death bed confession of the man who took the film of Nessie in the early 1900's?

Fr4om one site:


"My primary interest in Bigfoot has been with the famous Patterson film. The Patterson film was taken in the Pacific Northwest, the one where the Bigfoot looks back over his shoulder," Davis said. "I did a lot of work with some of the frames. There is 100 percent evidence this was not someone in a suit. There's no way it could be. I took some frames and put them through Animation Wizard, and I was able to identify muscle movement. The hair was very thin and the sun was penetrating to the skin and you could see all the muscle movement just as plain as day. You could see skin moving and you could see the gluteus muscles tighten as he walked. It wasn't a suit."


Hardly proof of its veracity. Oops, I lost the link to that one. However I checked Snopes.com to see if they had anything, as they seem to debunk just about everything, and I found nothing.

Indeed, according to Loren Coleman, one of the leading cryptozoologists in the world:


On October 20, 1967, the Patterson-Gimlin film was taken. This now-classic footage by Roger Patterson (Bob Gimlin was also there, gun at the ready) is the best evidence we have for a population of unknown primates (variously called Sasquatch or Bigfoot by the public) in the Pacific Northwest. I have not seen any debunking that holds any water, and I sense the film is authentic.



www.lorencoleman.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
No William not at all, this was only last year there abouts, maybe even earlier. I actually remember talking about it on here I think. Maybe I've just got terribly confused.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Weird, I already thought the footage had been debunked. Didn't the family reveal it was a hoax when the guy who made it died? It was part of his will to reveal this wasn't it?


You're right on the money John...I thought the same thing, and I KNOW I read it in reputable news sources....



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You're right on the money John...I thought the same thing, and I KNOW I read it in reputable news sources....


Thank you Gaz, so I'm not going crazy. I remember reading it in a couple of newspapers, I feel better now.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
copying and pasting exactly what I said in another thread just a few down:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's proof...the guy ADMITTED it was a hoax.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This may have been responded to already, but I just skipped the rest of the posts to reply to this.

"the guy" who admitted it was a hoax, had absolutely nothing to do with the patterson-gimlin footage.

The one who admitted it was a hoax, said that some famous holywood makeup artist(the one responsible for Planet of the Apes) created the costume for bigfoot, and that he had some wooden footprints to make the tracks. There are two problems with this.

1) The make up artist admitted that he was probably the best in the business at that time; but also admitted he was not skilled enough to create anything like what would be needed for the Patterson-Gimlin film.

2) The wooden feet he produced to prove that he hoaxed the whole encounter, when compared to the plasters casts of the bigfoot footprints taken at the time of the film did not even come close to matching up.

So, that being said. I admit it, I am God. I have a buttcrack, and there are tree's outside. That's all the proof I need.

My argument holds about as much water as the guys who admitted he hoaxed bigfoot. Therefore you must send me half of your paycheck through paypal for the rest of your life, or prepare for a plague of locusts. After all there is no reason to not believe me!



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The Stuff I read it wasnt really debunked, it was like everything else on the history channel, they only tell you the Story they are promoting, which was funny cause a month later they put one out saying it couldnt be fake because you can see the muscle movement in the legs, and how the great apes turn the bodies at the hips when turning you head stuff like that. History Loves to confuse =)



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The debunking theories on the Patterson film have been debunked. According to many doctors, scientists, and other professionals the Patterson film is not fake. If you want to find out more about it check out this link.

www.bfro.net...

I don't have time to copy and paste stuff from the site to this post, but if you want to take the time to look at that site it'd be a good idea.

There was a big documentary about sasquatches on the Discovery Channel ( I think ) You can order it on dvd off the BFRO site, I plan on doing so soon. This is all real fascinating stuff.

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Faisca]



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by William One Sac


However:


Tom Malone, a lawyer in Minneapolis, called us Friday on behalf of Bob Gimlin, associate of the now-dead Bigfoot filmmaker. "I'm authorized to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."


~*~....sounds like.....

Clinton-Speak to me !
"...nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit..."

Because, a certain Mr? Phillip Morris of N. Carolina, custom made a 'bigfoot suit' for $435.00 !! according to the story, and Heiron walked for $1000.oo.

Additionally...
"...(his) position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."

What? the hoax story or the suit claim or the movie? **sorta like the remark, 'what the definition of IS, is'

SHEEZE!! ?Phillip Morris, NC? suit fabricator?
(the first response which was easy to remember ->
a cigarette brand...in NC)....reeks of Fabrication to me, wot



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
First of all....If some guy claims he wore the suit.....where's the suit? I'm not going to believe that the film was debunked until I see the suit myself. It's like me saying....oh I saw a UFO....people say well show me the proof...pictures, a piece of the craft, etc. Well, show ME the proof that some guy wore a suit....specially when even the top guys in Hollywood say they can't even make a suit like that today.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
How are the hoaxers explaining with the footprint casting the hair that is not DNA classifiable?
The workings of the foot has been explained from examination of foot casting, not human but the hair DNA has not been classified other than not human or known animal.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
the pattern video is real.

the mussles moved, a person can NOT walk like it did (had dubbled henged knees) (was a female, noone can make the chest real even now adays)

and the dna sampling



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The Patterson film seem s real to me somehow i just cant explain it. The size and look and everything looks real and we cant forget the dna evidence aswell. All i have to say is 242 say hike!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join