It doesn't matter really.

If it was a costume I'd love to see the guy they put inside it. He would surely take the world record for the largest shoulders, arm length, arm maneuverability, leg musculature and would probably be the head of the ministry of silly walks.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes, the bottom of the foot looks strange and in some ways "unnatural", but as with everything else with the Patterson footage we can debate for hours about this single frame... It simply doesn't provide a conclusive answer.

I believe Grover Krantz (may he rest in peace, always seemed too gruff to me but was a giant within the field) could explain the odd foot and it fits in very well with his research on how the Bigfoots foot is anatomically.

Not sure if anyone here would remember it or if they where active in the Bigfoot scene on the web a decade ago but there was for a while a guy that claimed to basically know everything about the Patterson film and it being a hoax, I forget his name and most of the details but he basically was claiming he was a part of it. I believe he had Photos of the suit and the suit itself. Caused quite alot of aggro for the research community but he eventually faded away and was discredited and thoroughly debunked by the Bigfoot research community.

He was basically called out on it and eventually was proven by the big wigs in the field to be an attention seeking fraud. Sure wish I remembered the details more, but that pic in the OP's vid link has me thinking its related to this decade old event sicne the claims photo and the like are similar.

The old Lost in Space ape suit is definitely an issue (I remember noticing the similarity my self as a kid watching reruns of the show in the 80's) but to me while they are very similar to my eye ones a guy in a suit the others a living animal. Also that suit in the vid, has absolutely no muscle definition in the arms, even with a guy wearing it the arms bulk just wouldn't even compare to the Patterson footage, even if it was Patterson or Gimlin was wearing it.

Edit:- Wow just actually watched the vid... is this guy actually trying to make people believe his rubbish?.. same Hair, hands and arms?

And is he really stating that the chest breast profile line against the upper arm behind it is the zipper line?!

Notice the photo has no head visable also... and the first thing he hits the viewer with is... the patterson still and big bold red letters stating "Photo of Patterson Bigfoot Costume" rather than say "alleged Patterson Bigfoot Still". Way to color your evidence.

Sure theres still questions about the PG film, but after 25 years of seeing it from childhood to adulthood every time i see it im more and more convinced its the real deal.

It aint no monkey suit.

Hmm I think tomorrow ill get out all my Bigfoot Doco tapes and have a Bigfoot marathon

[edit on 28-5-2009 by BigfootNZ]

Im no bear expert but I was thinking it looks VERY similar to a bear skin?

What does anyone else think?

Granted, that short YouTube clip is a bit sad and laughable, but you really need to check out the guy's website. To say Mr. Blevins may may a bit "religiously eccentric" is putting it mildly, just check out his other investigations. Noah's Ark is a big kick in the pants. But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day and that's better than most ATS posters. But I digress...

Mr Blevins brings up some very valid points on his website. And there are some interesting coincidences as well. For instance, the long-running rumour that Make-up man John Chambers was involved in the suit fabrication. Mr. Chambers did a lot of television work back in the 1960's and quite a bit of it was uncredited. Chambers worked on lots of shows like "Lost In Space" of which several investigators believe a version of the PG Bigfoot costume was fashioned from. Funny enough, Mr. Blevins points out similarities with another make up artist from that time period, Wah Chang, who just happened to be working at the same studios as John Chambers. Even more interesting, both Chambers and Chang would have worked together to some degree as both were involved with the original series, Star Trek which is also in the time frame of the PG film.

Mr. Blevins also has a picture on the website of what he believes was used as the head for Patty and honestly, I have to give him credit. It really looks plausible. It was a head sculpted by Wah Chang and it really is the closest I have seen to being the head of Patty.

Go visit the site for yourself. It would be easier to accept some of Mr. Blevins conclusions without all of the religious overtones and if he would just turn on spellcheck, LOL. But the information is still valid and useful.

As for my beliefs. I totally believe in Bigfoot. :-) Had my own sightings so there really is no doubt for me. As for the PG Film and Patty, I'm sorry to say I'm not 12 years old anymore and no longer believe for the sake of believing. I think the film is fake. But I sure hope someone proves me wrong.

I think its a real animal in the Patterson footage. It was squatted down at the creek when they rode up, it stood up and looked at them, didn't scream, wave arms or anything. Its several yards from the horses. It spooked 3 I am guessing well trained horses since Patterson was an ex rodeo cowboy. I don't think a man in an ape suit, yards from them, standing quietly would spook 3 horses, they would know by the smell it was human even if it looked funny. Patterson had been seeing prints and like anyone that has ever watched Wild Kingdom he was going to the water source to try to catch one on film. It must have been his lucky day. There are people that have hit large lottery jackpots more than once, stranger things have happened. I watched the digitized version and the muscle movement is obvious. If that a man in a suit all I can say is great calves.

Americans blow stuff up today.

Excuse the worse of us right wing today

.... When scientists did an analysis of the footage, ..... the creature was found to be around 8 feet tall, ...... of top of that, ... they could clearly identify muscle groups under the fur, .......

even down to the neck movement, ..... as apes cannot turn their head's without turning their shoulders, ..... as the sasquatch in the film clearly does.

... I dont care how good makeup artists were back then, ... or now, ... these kinds of things are almost impossible to replicate.

Originally posted by merky
Geezzzz, people. Look close at the Patterson film as the so called beast walks away...after it turns to look back....now look at the soles of the feet.
There's lots of stop pictures of that frame. Now the foot is made and looks like a flat boot sole. The bottom of the foot for sure DON"T look like a foot.
You folks just ignore the truth even if it's right there in front of you. Now take a deep breath and get over it....IT'S FAKE....THAT BIGFOOT FILM IS FAKE.

Now for god sake don't say prove it...look up the picture yourself.

The reason the soles of the bigfoots feet look flat, even like boots or shoes is because that area seems to be reflecting light back at the camera. Its the same reason that you cannot make out much detail in the rocks which litter the ground in that area. The sun light is too strong.

I heard the suit may have come from that early episode of Star Trek that had bigfoot type creatures. The suit looks fake in certain areas like the breasts, (too big and bulbous, and hang too low). The buttocks are too big and hairy. I don't think a real bigfoot would have been so calm and just walk away. They are too shy and reclusive to let humans get so close.