Why I think the Patterson footage is fake

Yesterday the bigfoot episode of the ngc series “is it real” was on Dutch television, and it got me thinking about the footage, and I believe it to be fake. Why?

The footage is extremely pixelated. The creature takes up just a small percentage of the image, which means you have to zoom in. At that point, to put it bluntly, its as much up to interpretation as a rorchach inkblot.

The footage has never been debunked, proved to be fake. A suit has never been found and can’t be reproduced even today
. Well, the suit was probably burned. Here too, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The first claim, is the beef of my story. The BBC could not recreate the suit. Not with a big amount of money and a professional fx-house. Which one? Cinovation? EgdeFX? The Jim Henson Creature Shop? No, a fairly unknown studio.
Can such a big studio create such a suit? Actually, they do it a lot.

These suits are made of a series of layers. First there is the muscle suit. Muscles of carved foam and spandex. Then a fabric layer, against friction with the outer layer of the costume.
i2.photobucket.com...
Example: Kelsey Grammer as Beast in X-Men3 here showing the muscle suit, made last year by Spectral Motion.
i2.photobucket.com...
Gorilla muscle suit in “Buddy” made ten years ago by the Jim Henson Creature Shop.
i2.photobucket.com...
Stilt arm extensions used in “Buddy” to create the illusion of longer arms.

Of course, budget wise the BBC could not have created such an elaborate suit. Let alone Patterson. (But lets stop saying a suit like that is impossible to make.) Which is not necessary. Buddy was up to close scrutiny, as a feature film. Pattersons Bigfoot footage, like I said before, is very unsharp. A simple muscle suit under the fur costume and maybe wooden arm extensions would do the trick. (Although there is uncertainty were the joints are in the footage, so if those were used is a maybe.)
Or, a well muscled man. If the suit was thin enough in the back, that would also be an explanation of the muscle movement there too.
But why go through so much trouble? Well, let’s look at who made the most famous bigfoot footage ever. Not a tourist, a recreant, but a bigfoot enthusiast who even wrote a book about it before the footage was made. I think money and fame were the main factors there.

We're talking about 1967. Aso, it's not just the appearance, it's also the movement.

No offense but you seem to be firing all this off from just seeing one TV special. Have you done any research or seen the stablized video?

I am about 55% to the genuine side as there are great points on both sides of the argument.

No, its just that seeing that program got me thinking.

I've seen the stabilized footage. Firstly I wanted to point out that such a suit can be made. A lot of steps in movie fx would not be neccesary in something like the Patterson footage. (Punching every hair into the silicone skin individually for example) The foam muscles mimic the movement of real ones. That, the hairy costume and maybe hand extensions would be all that would ne neccesary.

A carved foam undersuit surely was feasable in the late 60's too. Besides Planet of the Apes there are not a lot of examples of apes in movies, simply because there werent made. (I've looked into this, ive only seen 2 japanese king kong vs godzilla films from that time. if someone knows more of these films from around that time, please tell me.) In the FX field, there are a lot of people say John Chambers made it. Possible, but just that in my opinion. The person in FX who knows more than anyone about making ape suits is Rick Baker. He made suits for the first King Kong remake, Greystoke, and Harry and the Hendersons. He believes its a man in a suit.

Of course, none of us has all the answers. We werent there. I think its possible Patterson created a suit with extra details, like the breasts so that when people saw these, it would validify the footage more. The breasts, btw could be either waterfilled balloons, or more likely, a soft gelatin mix in a balloon. I would say, dont underestimate the time and effort someone would be willing to put into something like this.



[edit on 10-8-2006 by Remko]

I absolutely see where you are coming from Remko.

The thing about crypto videos is that it seems like there are two specific categories that we instantly put them into: 1) Obviously a hoax and 2) Too good…it’s got to be a hoax.

The Patterson video falls into that second category where, when I watch it, I simply cannot believe that what I’m seeing could be real. But there are two basic rules of debunking that the Patterson video passes nicely…both of which you are arguing against here.

Anachronism is Cheating
If indeed the creature in the video is a man in a suit, then that suit was not just years ahead of its time, it was DECADES ahead of its time. Is it impossible to make a suit like that? No. Was it impossible to make a debunk-proof suit like that in 1967? I think it would be impossible. The movies that you are referring to (Planet of the Apes, etc.) do not have the level of costuming prowess that would be required to create the Patterson creature. And to say that Patterson could have pulled it off by calling on special effects techniques perfected almost 30 years later…that’s cheating.

Hoaxes Get Debunked
Sounds simple, but I’m a firm believer…hoaxes, especially elaborate ones that take many individuals (like it would to create such an amazing suit), eventually get debunked. The more elaborate, the more of a chance that someone will spill their guts and blow the whole thing up. The fact that this one is still out there after 29 years is pretty amazing…especially considering that Patterson does not rely on ambiguity to pull the hoax off…no sir, he has the Sasquatch in plain view, strutting his stuff…no shadows and no waving camera…boom – he might as well turned the camera on himself and shouted “DEBUNK THAT B*TCHES!!”

Okay I’m just ranting now. Here’s my conclusion:

If the Patterson video is a hoax, it is the awesomest of awesome hoaxes.

You elaborated quite nicely on what I said. I've just explained it in the long version so many times I got lazy.

The footage has stood up for a long time so you have to give it props!

The suits i posted were meant as illustration of the process. I said that a simple musclesuit would be enough to create muscle movement. Of course the process is perfected over the years. Now these suits are so good they can be shown in movement at full resolution on a cinema screen. A simpler version would be enough for the image quality in the patterson footage to look natural.
maybe patterson was more creative than you think.

hoaxes do get debunked. and the more people that know, the bigger the chance that someone spills the beans. The famous loch ness "surgeons photo" made in '34 also stood the test of time. And the longer it did, the more credible it became. Untill someone finally came out with the true story.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Im not saying Bigfoot doesnt exist. (Its also impossible to proof that something does not exist, so if this creature doesnt exist, we'll be debating this for a long time.)
I do think there is a really big chance the patterson footage is faked.

The thing that makes me feel like the video is real is that people haven't been able to duplicate it.

The stride, the arms, the muscles, the fur...all of it. If something has been faked, then it can be faked again. But noone, even using technology that wasn't readily available to Patterson, has been able to pull it off.

Your gut feeling may be right, it may be an amazing hoax, but not being able to reproduce it...that's hard to explain away.

I have always found the "circumstances" a tad fishy. We have loads of accounts of bigfoot swiftly ducking for cover, hiding and generally avoiding direct contact, let alone being filmed. Yet in this instance, we have a guy who had not only wrote a book on the subject, but happened to set out for the express purpose of filming bigfoot. The amazing thing of it all is that he just happened to get some significant footage of the enigmatic myth, as though it were walking a catwalk, looking to show itself to a degree.

I find THAT alone to be somewhat telling.

Originally posted by JoeFriday
Yet in this instance, we have a guy who had not only wrote a book on the subject, but happened to set out for the express purpose of filming bigfoot.

I hear what you're saying Joe...it seems too good to be true.

But, to be fair, every single Bigfoot hunter in the world sets out for the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. You can't really use that as criteria to attack Patterson.

If we believe that the Sasquatch is a real creature, wasn't it only a matter of time until someone got a shot THAT GOOD?

I am one of those who believe the Patterson film is real... Essedarius explained exactly what I was thinking.

(And for that I offer a WATS vote!)

You have voted Essedarius for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

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.

Link to tracks GIF - I'm afraid the picture(s) is a bit small to see the prints clearly.

According to Bigfoot enthusiasts Don Hunter and Rene Dahinden, the footage was shown to special effects artists at Universal Studios just weeks after it was shot. Their conclusion was: "We could try. But we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible."

More here - Check out the "SFX Artists Think Film is Fake" heading.

Okay, ill answer to these posts one by one.

Essedarius: You’re saying no one could reproduce that kind of suit, even today with materials not available to people in the late sixties.
Nobody has pulled it off, I say nobody has tried that. The BBC try was done on a low budget, and not by one of the top fx studios. I think most people in fx these days would be offended by such a claim. The BBC did a #ty job, probably because they didn’t took the program too seriously.
Using ’67 materials is more difficult. But, like I said before, a simple muscle suit was very possible then.

If Bigfoot is real, it should only be a matter of time before there is real, solid, physical evidence. (Remains) So that would not be a strong argument either.

Gemwolf: You are absolutely right. No photo or video will be evidence solid enough for any crypto creature. You cant dissect it, get DNA from it, find a zipper ( ) , ect.
I also find it unlikely John Chambers made the suit.

The bump is very easily integrated into a suit. Like I mentioned before, it could be a sack or balloon filled with water or a soft gelatin mix. The use of waterfilled “belly sacks” was used for a long time in ape suits before the patterson film. Today it would be encapsulated silicone gel.
The reason why I also mentioned before. If you put details in a suit that are not easily seen, it gives enormous credibility. Like those prints.

The testimonials from experts are good. There are also a lot of experts believing it to be fake, even a investigative nightmare. Video evidence, especially this unclear, is extremely difficult to debunk or proof authentic.

Originally posted by Remko
The BBC try was done on a low budget, and not by one of the top fx studios.

I think that makes the BBC effort a pretty accurate representation of the resources that Patterson probably had at his disposal.

(Again, if Patterson did covertly enlist a top fx studio, then I think that information would have leaked by now...somebody would spill the beans.)

I thought the guy who was with Patterson said it was faked. I'm pretty sure I saw this on TV he even told them who the guy was that played the Bigfoot in the film. They went and questioned the guy, who denied it, but when he walked away the way he moved looked awful familiar if you know what I mean. And yes the guy is like 6' 8" so he was tall enough to have done it.

Originally posted by Garaman Rex
I thought the guy who was with Patterson said it was faked. I'm pretty sure I saw this on TV...

Can you remember the show?
*Deep breath.*
That would suck...I'm having Santa flashbacks...

in the fx-bizz, its very, very common to have a non-disclosure agreement.
And dont forget, the nessie surgeon's photo took about 70 years to be debunked.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Remko]

Originally posted by Remko
in the fx-bizz, its very, very common to have a non-disclosure agreement.
And dont forget, the nessie surgeon's photo took about 70 years to be debunked.
[edit on 11-8-2006 by Remko]

True, true...but there is a big difference between signing a non-disclosure agreement with LucasFilm and signing one with Roger Patterson, Bigfoot nut. Someone would have leaked.

The surgeon's photo (while it did make me sad to hear the truth) just didn't have the level of detail that the Patterson footage has. It was difficult to debunk due to its ambiguity, not because of its overwhelming detail. Name me one other crypto, or alien, or conspiracy video that displays the detail that the Patterson's video does, that has been able to withstand the debunking masses for 30 years.

Thats were we differ. I really think the patterson footage is so unsharp its impossible to get undeniable evidence out of. Some experts say itsabsolutely a unknown big ape, others say they dont know were to begin with a film of this quality.

Originally posted by Remko
I really think the patterson footage is so unsharp its impossible to get undeniable evidence out of.

In the pantheon of Bigfoot videos, I think the Patterson video ranks pretty darn high clarity wise.

I mean think about other videos where you get this or this.

It may not be hi-def...but it's the best out there, without a doubt.

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by Garaman Rex
I thought the guy who was with Patterson said it was faked. I'm pretty sure I saw this on TV...

Can you remember the show?
*Deep breath.*
That would suck...I'm having Santa flashbacks...

Yeah, its fake. The outtakes and cuts are occasionally shown on TV. The suit was recycled by Chambers. The head was used later in a couple of different low budget 'B' sci fi shows. Before anyone posts the interview with Chambers where he denies making the Patterson Suit, remember the interview took place after he was in moderate alzheimers/dementia. He also denied working on "Planet of the Apes" and later denied ever working in the film industry. Several of his fx contemporaries have confirmed the suit was Chamber's creation.

Still, there are those that still believe in the flat earth, too.

Originally posted by dave_54
Yeah, its fake. The outtakes and cuts are occasionally shown on TV.

Sigh.

Well don't just sit there sucking on your smugness...post a link to a reference that will educate me before I fall off the edge of the world.