Yeah, I thought about that whole stretch fur scenario. The problem is I don't see the stretch fur. No one else saw this for years until someone said, "Hey, look! It's stretch fur material." Now everyone sees it, LOL.

I don't see stretch fur. I don't see facial movement. I see shadows and light refraction, but no true smooth musculature movement. And I don't think anyone else does either. My reason? It's just not there. Not on the original film source. No matter how sophisticated we get with our new digital enhancing technology you will ALWAYS AND FOREVER WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, be limited to the quality of your source material to a great degree. It's just a fact. Anything outside of the original source is either interpretation (human) or interpolation (non-human). If the original source, whether it be visual or audio, is incapable of capturing the required "detail", then nothing will ever occur to make that detail "reappear" short of magic or fabrication. Yes, things can be enhanced, but the problem is that you have to trust that the interpolation or interpretation is accurate and infallible and unfortunately for us, both systems are imperfect.

The 16mm film camera, film stock & lens, operator sophistication and the problem with the natural elements all combine to limit the quality and resolution of the Patterson film.
No matter how hard we try, we will always be limited by that original material. To make matters even more difficult and limit that source material even further, there is NO ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. The original was lost, stolen, misplaced or disintegrated long ago. We are stuck with, at best, a copy of the original.

Does anyone not remember the big stink a few years back about the "zipper bell" in the costume. Half of the people SAW the bell, the other half saw an artifacting issue from the enhancement. That instance took a while to finally die down. I believe the "it's just an artifact" crowd finally won out.

My point is that every few years a new expert with new proof pops up to blow the lid off the Patterson film. Proof that it's real, Proof that it's fake. I guarantee you within 5 years there will be another "major breakthrough" in this argument of real or fake.

If you want to really impress people, let's find the original film and the original camera and lens. THEN, and only then, can we get a real foothold into digging into the facts of the Patterson film.

Got my fingers crossed...

I think the Patterson footage is a fascinating subject, and I saw where the muscles in the back moved. I don't see how anyone could have faked that back in the 60's. I don't know if it's real, but I wish they could prove that it is real!

Originally posted by fooffstarr

The Patterson footage clearly shows a fur / skin with elastic properties, properties which could not have been created with the materials available to special effects designers in the mid 60's.

The ape suits in the movie 1 Million Years B.C. look identical to Patty. This was released a year before Patterson shot his footage.




Planet of the Apes that came out in 1968 also had great monkey suits.

the funny things is that the guy who made some of the monkey suits in question, maintains that there is no way the patterson film is of someone wearing a suit.
His reasons are numerous and based in the experience of making suits for the film industry

In reference to the "blog" post about it being hoaxed: Most would agree that the biggest argument against the Patterson-Gimlin footage is that "Patterson was a scumbag and actively went searching for Bigfoot and low and behold, he found a Bigfoot!"

Guess what, have you ever heard of a thing called the lottery? Somewhere out there a scumbag that doesn't deserve to get rich has won millions of dollars through getting lucky, one-in-hundreds of millions type of odds. People have gone looking for Bigfoot in the past, currently do, and will in the future. The fact that Roger Patterson actively went looking for Bigfoot and found one was very lucky, it doesn't mean it's fake. You also certainly have a better chance of finding one (and recording it) when you're prepared. Other people potentially find evidence, some unexplained - some hoaxed, but other people do try as well.

Patterson was a dirtbag, yes. Did he deserve to find a Bigfoot after all the problems in his life and consequently make a lot of money off of it? No, he didn't. But it happened. Any opinion-based claims that he was hoaxing just because he actively went searching hold no value. It just means he won the lottery.

The episode of Monsterquest was extremely compelling. The crew used every possible expert to determine the authenticity of the film. In the end the modern day costume designer for Hollywood says there is no way there is a human in the suit. The forensic scientist that enhanced the film says that there is no way. Now I know nothing about either one of these topics so I have to take their word on it.

IMO the video will always be inconclusive due to quality and modern day standards for proof. However, for those that argue it is fake because Patterson was a scumbag, well for a scumbag he was a smart one. Remember he pulled off the Hoax (in their opinion) that is still yet to be proved a Hoax.

I would like to share my experience with people that believe, because no one believes me here where I live besides my sisters fiance. I live in the central part of Ohio, a little to the east. I live in the country, and have all my life. Nothing here was ever unusual. I know my animals, when I hear a an animal running in the woods I know whether its a deer or a little animal. Nothing weird, until a couple months ago.

It all started when My sister and I were coming home from a friends (my sis lives right beside me). We got out of the car once we arrived home. Across the road, we heard a very deep cough, and we thought it was our neighbor, since it was on his property. So we called out "TOM is that you?" and there was nothing. It was a very deep cough that just didn't sound right. So we got creeped out and went inside. This kept on for a couple of weeks. So one night I decided to walk across the yard to my sisters to hang out with her and her fiance. Suddenly, down on the road (We live on a little hill) this big black mass was walking the same way I was. It was dark out, and the only light that was on was my sisters porch light. It was on two feet, and walking not like a human would. Its shoulders were propped up...well this is hard to explain what it looked like. Well it started running and it sounded like barefeet hitting the road. I guess it heard me which caused it to run. I kept walking and staring at it cus I was just...so shocked. So I got to my sisters driveway and it got to the end of the driveway but before me. It looked up at me. its eyes were glowing and it stood at least 6 feet 6 inches. It made grunting sounds when it ran too. Well it ran down the road and into the woods across the road. I just was so shaken that I could hardly talk. Never in my life did I experience something like that. I have always believed in bigfoot. But not where I live!!

My mom also had an experience too when she was younger and living out here. She was in the garage at her friends house and they were just having fun and partying a little. All the sudden they heard something and so her friend got her dad. it was out in the barn. So he walked down there to find that their goats head was completly torn off. So he made them all go in the house.

So any thoughts on why I would suddenly see this creature and never before? Do they migrate?

I couldn't watch the doco sadly, only a short highlight segment. It would be interesting to see the points explained that were made in the op, particularly the part about the feet. They have always appeared to be rubber soles to me. In the past I have seen some "expert" analysis that I found less than convincing (possibly to the point of being humerus) and cast a bit of doubt IMO on the impartiality of what are called "experts". So much conflicting information on this that in the end only leaves it open to each persons opinion. In general I tend to have the opinion that the best thing this film has going for it (in terms of not being able to prove it a hoax) is the same thing that causes the scientific community to generally regard it as being of little value, the poor quality. Though I don't say bigfoot isn't real, I have always had a lot of doubts about this film, to me it is still a hoax. Though I will keep trying to find the video in question.