patterson gimlin film

[TomTomKent]

Sorry, obvious and admitted fake. We know who hired the suit, we know the cameras were there to film a scene for a (failed) movie in which Native Americans were to see a Sasquatch in the distance, we know how the prints were made, and pretty much everything else. JREF forums have a great but lengthy discussion of this, and the Skeptoid page has a pretty concise demolition of the filming of the Bigfoot. Including admissions from people involved IIRC.

Not that it makes the film any less beautiful simply because it was a fake...

[John Wheat]

I'm undecided on wether it's a fake or not and on wether bigfoot exists or not.

[gallicrow]

I'm firmly in the "it's a fake" camp. It was, however, a very well planned and executed fake.

Here is a link to the best version of the video that I've seen (second half of the video in particular)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk

The genius of Patterson and Gimlin was to modify the gorilla costume they had bought to give it longer arms, and that is the only reason the film is still being talked about today. Without those it would be painfully obvious that it was just a man in a gorilla suit.

[kensei]

Wow, I love the rare times when this kind of topic pops up here because I am an avid cryptozoologist and for those who don't know what Patterson-Gimlin is it is a film clip shot on October 20, 1967 in the extreme northwest corner of California showing BIGFOOT. Yes Pinkmoon, the more modern analysis is done the more it shows that a real non-human hair-covered primate creature walked in front of that camera that day. Precise measurements show that no human alive (in spite of claims to the contrary by people who say they were the man in the suit) could have fit into such a costume and still had the range of movement shown in the film. It's easy to say come on, look at it, it's obviously just a big man in a gorilla suit. But no, the numbers are very subtle but they are inescapable. If the "suit" is fitted to an upper human body the legs don't fit, and if it's fitted to human legs then the upper body doesn't fit. Plus a human head could not function/see where it's going inside the proposed mask seen in the film.

There have been many attacks against Roger Patterson (the cameraman) and Bob Gimlin (his partner) and carefully laid out explanations as to how they faked it. The fact that these attacks are numerous and varied in their details means that they effectively cancel each other out, as they cannot all be true. This is a good place to discuss it actually, as the same is true about so many Jack the Ripper suspects who have been "proven" to be guilty or innocent over the years by lists of facts.

[pinkmoon]

I've just revisited via YouTube the famous Patterson gimlin film fully expecting to see digitally enhanced clips to show why it's a fake but far from comfirming a fake these clips look like the genuine thing.The last documentary I watched over 30 years ago stated that the advances in technology will prove this film fake or genuine I'm swayed greatly towards genuine.