It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Patterson Bigfoot/Human comparison

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:10 AM
This neat video came to my attention. The Video description goes as follows:

An anatomical gait and body proportion comparison of alleged Bigfoot hoaxer, Bob Heironimus, with the Patterson-Gimlin Sasquatch.


The video:

More on Bob Heironimus: Wiki

It's unclear how old Bob was when the "comparison" photograph was taken. We need to keep in mind that an older man wouldn't exactly have the same "walk" as he did when he was +/-30 years younger.

The video doesn't give a clear indication of Bob's honesty and/or his ability to "walk the walk". But being a strong supporter of the Patterson film being real, this is a nice addition to the Patterson puzzle.

I wonder if there's an expert on human kinetics/motion in the house?

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 04:07 PM
Good find.

I would have to say, that I don't think that it proves anything as the creature in the paterson film has shorter legs and longer arms, which in my eyes, disproves this guys lame attempts!

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Gemwolf

wow.....mind numbing.

ok, apparently yall didn't hear, but on his death bead he admitted the hoax.
that was years ago. how do you people just shut out the truth, plug you
ears, shut your eyes, and march on like its not in front of you. once again,
im amazed.

contrary to how i will be precevied now, im not a total skeptic, and very
much would LOVE to believe in ANYTHING (as so many of you do).
HOWEVER my scientific mind prohibits me from accepting anything
or placing validity on nonsense.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Murdoku
reply to post by Gemwolf

wow.....mind numbing.

ok, apparently yall didn't hear, but on his death bead he admitted the hoax.

Please, I beg of you show me a valid source showing this as a fact. There is no evidence of this being true. Saying it in a matter-of-fact tone doesn't make it true either.

There are no written sources whatsoever suggesting Patterson admitted to a hoax on his deathbed. No one in his family has ever claimed that Roger admitted to a hoax before his death. All of the assertions in that regard began circulating after the Loch Ness story came out.

One of hundreds of sources trying to rid us of the legend.

In fact, if you were to say the same thing to someone like Loren Coleman he would probably have a seizure out of frustration.

Originally posted by Murdoku
that was years ago. how do you people just shut out the truth, plug you
ears, shut your eyes, and march on like its not in front of you. once again,
im amazed.

What was years ago? The "fact of the confession"? Perhaps we don't just lend our ears out to gossip, lies, legends or general slander? If the truth is "right in front of us", please point it out in a factual manner.

Originally posted by Murdoku
contrary to how i will be precevied now, im not a total skeptic, and very
much would LOVE to believe in ANYTHING (as so many of you do).
HOWEVER my scientific mind prohibits me from accepting anything
or placing validity on nonsense.

I can guarantee you that I'm just as sceptical - perhaps much more sceptical about each piece of "evidence" that pass in front of my eyes, especially when it comes to cryptozoology. Need I remind you that most "cryptozoologists" (with the exception of a handful of wannabe yaks) are scientists in their profession? They're biologists, zoologists, marine biologists - I mean even Steve Irwin had a healthy interest in cryptozoology. Bigfoot, "Chupacabra", Nessie, etc. doesn't need be "inter-dimensional creatures" with glowing red eyes that's out there to scare people. They can be simple blood and flesh creatures that simply remain undiscovered by the science community. Plain and simple. Need I mention examples of such creatures? The Borneo Rhino, Coelacanth, the African mountain gorilla, I mean years ago tales of "giant squid" were thought to be nothing but seamen's tales. Today it's just as widely accepted fact as the common horse.

In my opinion closing your mind to the possibility that such creatures exist isn't very scientific. Years ago people's "scientific minds" prohibited them from accepting the possibility that the earth was round... How many scientists were scoffed at by the rest of the science community because their ideas were "nonsense"? A hundred years ago people would have said it's "nonsense" if you were to tell them that you could talk to anyone in the world by using a small grey box - with no wires attached to it - called a Nokia...?

Perhaps you should re-think your approach towards cryptozoology and consider exactly what a "scientific mind" is and does... Your conclusion may just be “mind numbing”.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 12:43 PM
hear hear. that "death bed confession" bull stink is very very annoying. on the other hand if this were poker, we could just take it as a way of seeing someones cards. do your homework people. your posting on a subject that alot of people are very passionate and knowledgable in, all we ask is you train a little bit before you step in the ring. sigh.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 01:53 PM
Interesting video.

However, the thing that has always struck me about the Patterson film is not so much the creature's gait, as the movement of its extremities.

Look at the difference in arm length, look at the difference in shoulder girth, butt size, leg length. The fact that you can distinctly see muscles roll and independent finger and wrist movement in the film can only mean one of two things:

The film has captured a previously undiscovered species.


The film has documented a feat of costuming that was years ahead of any techniques available to producers (which these men were NOT) at the time, and one that has not been duplicated since by any Hollywood special effects studio.

As for me...I think it's clear where I'm casting my vote.

And a hearty thank you to Gemwolf for deftly handling the obligatory "death bed confession" rant.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:58 PM

come off it, people.

"but wheres the costume? ok, i was gunna start a joke here, but thats actually a decent question.

it was not my intention to get into a whole big thing here. no matter if we type foe days, some of you will STILL believe and some of you WONT.

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 10:45 PM

Can I ask why you believe the third hand articles you found and not ones like THIS:

from the above link...

The author [Greg Long] makes it clear that he began with two firm convictions, that the creature in Roger Patterson's film of Bigfoot had to be a man in a suit, and that if he could demonstrate that Roger Patterson was a bad person that would prove he had hoaxed the film.

(I believe that's called "having an agenda.")

But this is better:

As a result he was blind to the fact that Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to have driven there to act the part in the film, obviously had never been there either.

Confusion over which towns are where in that part of California might be explained by the passing of more than 30 years, but not "about four, maybe five miles" up the Bluff Creek Road from the highway. It would have been more than 20 miles of twisting dirt road, and not easy miles, well over an hour's drive, and not a forgettable one.

And even better...

[Long] made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film...

And the best...

and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows.

I guess you just have to decide who to believe.

I choose, for now, to believe in the validity of the film because I have never heard an adequate explanation as to how the "fakers" came up with a costume that has not been successfully reproduced since.

Why do you believe what you do?

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:59 AM
Look, a bigfoot hoax book review on a bigfoot fan site. Talk about agendas!
After 30 years, he couldn’t readily find the spot, and that’s some sort of proof? hmmm…..
Arm/leg extensions
Last one interesting if reliable.

Look, I’m not saying I flat out don’t believe in some sort of “bigfoot” or what have you.
If I didn’t think it was at least possible, I wouldn’t be hanging around pages like these.
It’s really just my complete and utter sickness of this one in peticular. I actually think
that 8 foot, upright walkin’ apes are possible, but this topic in particular is like
politics and religion; truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by Murdoku

So, you don't have a source that can verify that Patterson actually confessed that it was a hoax on his deathbed?

To add to Essedarius' post...

Between you and me, Rense and WorldNetDaily aren't exactly the best sources if you want to use an external source to prove something. But nonetheless, we're all aware of Heironimus' claims, and if you read carefully you'll notice that I mentioned him in my original post. Philip Morris also "admitted" to being involved in the hoax. Ray Wallace claimed to have been involved. What about Jerry Romney's involvement? To mention but a few. And if you add all these "claims" up, you'll soon find that someone is lying.

Loren Coleman has done extensive research on all these claims and rather than me repeating everything he has said on the matter, I'll nudge you in his direction. This is a good start. Or this. Or even this.

But if you're not up for Coleman's scientific approach, you could always try

The source of this claim is of course Kal Korff's "The Making of Bigfoot"... Take a look at what readers of this book (even the sceptics) think...
You'll find stuff like:

Having anticipated what was touted as a final, fairhanded and CREDIBLE expose of the film, what I found within it's pages is a schizophrenic mishmash of sorts. Several of the author's 'witnesses' contradict each other ( and themselves )on many key points, and his facts are presented in a somewhat haphazard manner, particularly where the alleged monkey suit is involved, and this is perhaps the most damning of all. This should not be taken lightly, as this is the central point of his thesis - that the 'bigfoot' in the film is actually a man in a suit. However, this final, irrevocable demolition of the sasquatch legend falls well short of the mark, as his two main witnesses offer conflicted and extremely contradictory testimony as regards the 'suit' itself, and as such, the promised knock-out punch turns out to be a feeble wrist-flap.


This book is long on circumstantial evidence and hearsay and short on any kind of hard evidence. It totally discounts the decades of scientific and forensic analysis that supports the film's authenticity and mocks those who do not.


This book, like so many others that attempt to debunk the Bigfoot legend, commits the same cardinal sin of research that they claim Bigfoot believers commit: This book is all speculation, and offers zero proof to substantiate it's claims.

And if you dig a bit you'll find that Heironimus took a lie detector test on live TV and he passed the test! I'm not kidding you... Check it out. But wait... Didn't self-confessed killer Ted Bundy pass his polygraph as well? And then we wonder why polygraphs aren't admissible in court?

This drama surrounding an article in Skeptical Inquirer is also a very interesting read.

Look, here's even an article from one of your sources that says: "Some reasons for caution about the Bigfoot film expose: for sceptics, the revelation of a hoax can provide valuable insights but may also contain pitfalls"...

Should I go on?

Yes, you're right, we can type for days, and I've got enough material to keep me going for weeks if I have to. And I will still believe after all the arguing. Because after 4 decades no one could indefinitely prove or disprove the Patterson/Gimlin film. Many have tried, many have made money trying, but no-one ever gave anything solid. And that my friend is the crux of the matter. In all hoaxes the obvious truth always comes out. Look at Nessie hoaxes, UFO hoaxes, email hoaxes, etc. etc.

Glancing at this page I see that I've got more than enough reason - scientific and just plain faith - to continue believing that the Patterson film my just be the real deal.

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:44 AM
good for you. this will never be proven/disproved. that is simply the nature of
this story. man, and i know saying anything would give validation to those
endless nights yall spent on the subject. i do concede, however, some of the things posted here tonight i didn't know
. so breath a long sigh of relief,
bigfoot exists, you can sleep easy tonight, EverBelievers of the world.

Here are the EDITORIAL REVIEWS of the book (from your link):

Statesman Journal, April 25, 2004
"Skeptic or believer, if you have an interest in Bigfoot, you need to read this book."

Book Description
" The journalistic quest to identify the person who wore a 'Bigfoot Suit' in Roger Patterson's world-famous film has culminated in this highly informative and revealing investigation. Hopefully, now all the people who know the truth about Patterson's footage will come forward, and the scientific community will focus on other potential evidence when trying to determine whether the legendary creature is real or a popculture myth." -ROBERT C. KIVIAT (Network TV Executive Producer, WORLD'S GREATEST HOAXES: SECRETS FINALLY REVEALED and ALIEN AUTOPSY: FACT OR FICTION?)

"Greg Long's new book is long overdue in a time of outrageous urban legends. It is both refreshing and affirming to encounter a serious book that reveals an 'actual' conspiracy of deliberate lies. Furthermore, THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT is that rare combination of investigative journalism and storytelling; it is simply a very good read. I recommend it for its gripping internal narrative based mostly on the strange life of one man - yet it weighs in against the larger legends that still swirl around the mythic hairy giant who haunts the wilderness of our minds." - KENNETH C. WYLIE, Ph.D. (Author of BIGFOOT: A PERSONAL INQUIRY INTO A PHENOMENON)

"Greg Long has written a rare book: one that celebrates the true mysteries of our lives while remaining faithful to the importance of rigorous examination and critical thinking. Thos book is a must-read for those who seek to understand the anatomy of our burgeoning modern myths. It will stand as a cautionary tale for all of us. We are each responsible for the way our tales unfold. Like Roger Patterson and the film he created, we are joined at the chest to our stories. If one becomes corrupt, the other is sure to die also." -DAWN PRINCE-HUGHES, Ph.D. (Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham; Author of THE ARCHETYPE OF THE APE-MAN and GORILLAS AMONG US: A PRIMATE ETHNOGRAPHER'S BOOK OF DAYS)

"Regardless of your opinion about the subject of Bigfoot, this book cannot be ignored! This is a work that is truly universal and appeals automatically to everyone. This book is a real eye opener, and it is refreshing to see that the lost art of good old investigative journalism is finally back. This should set an example for courses on critical thinking and investigative journalism around the world. Long's persistence has paid off; the scientific community and the general public should be thankful, as well as the Bigfoot community." -MICHAELA KOCIS (Investigative Journalist, Broadcaster, ExpresRadio, Mlada Fronta DNES, Czech Republic)

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Murdoku]

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:48 AM
reply to post by Murdoku

To which I may reply.... "might the authors of these comments have their own agenda"

Each comment you cited originates from people who, by the books they have written or tv shows they produced, already had there mind made up before the book was even written, with the exception of the last one "Czech Republic"??Not sure why an investigated reporter from Czech would be cited, plenty of good reporters in the US.

The same can be said about the ones posted by Gemwolf, people already believing and not wanting to change based on any evidence.

The key word there is 'evidence'. There is none and probably never will be with the Patterson film.

I think that the fact that no one has been able to offer up any credible evidence in itself, speaks volumes of its probable authenticity.

As it has been said many times before.. you are either a believer or not.

To prove the creature exists is a much harder application than saying it doesn't.

Most children over the age of 3 could say BF doesn't exist, no evidence

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:16 AM
Forgot to comment on the video.

The video itself can be perceived by some as a very close comparison.

Whenever the 'Bob' videos surface, I'm always left wondering...

1)Is he trying to replicate the exact movements shown in the Patterson film, to corroburate his story and make it more convincing?

2) If he did in fact put on a monkey suit and star in the Patterson film, wouldn't it make sense for him to emulate what he perceives the creature would move like, thus making his everyday walk to the corner store irrelevant as an example of how he walks/moves.

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
I think that the fact that no one has been able to offer up any credible evidence in itself, speaks volumes of its probable authenticity.

I see what you're saying, but I have to disagree based on two points:

The Patterson film is in itself credible evidence. Until someone proves undeniably that it is a hoax. Outside of the Zapruder film, I don't think there is any other "conspiracy related" clip that has been as dissected and studied as thoroughly as this one. And yet...what tactic did Greg Long use to "debunk" the film? A personal attack on Patterson.

Films that are manufactured inevitably have the hoaxers fingerprints on it. We've seen it a million times...inconsistencies in the premise or execution of the hoax that come to light over time and after much analysis.

I just don't see those fingerprints. No one does. If Greg Long did, wouldn't his book have been about the FILM...not about Patterson the person?

I just don't think that it's legitimate to say that there's no credible supporting evidence that a creature like that could exist. Last year I had a friend...a friend with absolutely NO INTEREST in crypto whatsoever...who relayed to me a bigfoot encounter in Central Washington that BLEW MY MIND. ATS's very own MrWupy has a similar story...

Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be skeptical. Until there is a Sasquatch in captivity, skepticism is a pretty legitimate stance. But on the other side of the coin, I don't think it's legitimate to let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction to where all things Bigfoot are dismissed out of hand.

In the Patterson film, you have visual evidence of a massive, upright creature walking through the woods...not a shaky two second clip, not a shadow in the bushes, and not a moving spec on the side of a mountain miles away...a film that has been studied ad naseum, and still has never been definitively debunked.

That's got to be worth something...right?


posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:43 PM
If someone wanted to prove that Bigfoot does exist, why not go into the damn woods and catch him with a net or something?!?! Simply saying "Oh yeah, Bigfoot exists, in those woods...just over there" means absolutely nothing!!!

Until someone actually catches Bigfoot, he does not exist...period!!!!

And this "Bob" is obviously full of it, anyone in the free world can say "I was the one in the Bigfoot suit in that video, and I can walk just like it"...believe this, and your just plain gullible!!!


....see how easy that is! pffftt!!!!

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by cj6

So basically your telling us that the panda, and giant squid just materialized out of nothingness? Just because something hasnt been caught or a body not seen does not mean it doesn't exist. Other than that you are correct anyone can say i was the man in the suit.


posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:57 PM
ummm...basically, yeah!!! lol

I just dont see a logical explanation for this "Bigfoot" creature to actually exist. Of all the "mythical creatures" supposedly out there, Bigfoot is the most ridiculous my opinion!

btw, I was the one in the Bigfoot suit!!!!!!

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by Grailkeeper

*In best Orson Wells voice* Yes, yes, yes!

top topics


log in