patterson gimlin film

[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.

[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.

[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.

[John Wheat]

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

[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...

[TomTomKent]

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.

Sorry there is no cancelling out. There is a burden of proof on the claim. Either the film can be shown to be genuine, or it can be shown to have been faked multiple ways. That there are many other explanations that might also be considered adds weight against the primary claim.

For example, if I were to film myself levitating, my claim would not be considered more viable just because my critics showed I could appear to levitate in an identical way through computer effects, use of wires, or smoke and mirrors. These do not cancel each other out, they are all possible explanations that I will have to counter to overcome a null hypothesis: that I appear to do something outside of nature through mundane means.

When guys are trying to sell a film that includes a Sasquatch, and they then seem amazed to have filmed something that looks like a Sasquatch, I would be sceptical. Just as I would if a low budget horror film claimed to show a real ghost.

[pinkmoon]

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.

Hi kensei,technology has shown that this film isn't a man in a monkey suit I always thought it was untill buying the book"when roger met patty" available from amazon.The gentleman who wrote this book William munns has spent nearly 50 years in special effects business and has spent seven years examining every one of the 900 frames that make up this footage.What we have to remember is that this was filmed in 1967 when an actor in a monkey suit looked like a man in a monkey suit.Why would Patterson travel 400 miles to film a fake when he lived a few miles from where there had been hundreds of big foot sightings?How could he make a monkey suit more advanced than the best studio in Hollywood?Why make it female by giving it breasts he would have made the suit more complicated and harder to construct?.On you tube there is a 5 minute video narrated by John Kirk who runs through this film watch it .one last thing the conflicting back stories told about this film strengthen it surely to God after doing the hard bit by making and faking the film you would have a water tight story about how it came into being.

[TomTomKent]

Hi kensei,technology has shown that this film isn't a man in a monkey suit I always thought it was untill buying the book"when roger met patty" available from amazon.The gentleman who wrote this book William munns has spent nearly 50 years in special effects business and has spent seven years examining every one of the 900 frames that make up this footage.What we have to remember is that this was filmed in 1967 when an actor in a monkey suit looked like a man in a monkey suit.Why would Patterson travel 400 miles to film a fake when he lived a few miles from where there had been hundreds of big foot sightings?How could he make a monkey suit more advanced than the best studio in Hollywood?Why make it female by giving it breasts he would have made the suit more complicated and harder to construct?.On you tube there is a 5 minute video narrated by John Kirk who runs through this film watch it .one last thing the conflicting back stories told about this film strengthen it surely to God after doing the hard bit by making and faking the film you would have a water tight story about how it came into being.

Unfortunately Munns is neither renowned for his analytical or his special effects expertise. For a start there is debate over if some of the "motions" Munns has analysed are movements of the suit, or in film artefacts of exposure and background bleed. More obviously, some of the "impossible" movements are possible with out complications. IIRC more were more issues with portraying non sequential frames for contrast but not discussing sequential frames?

[pinkmoon]

Unfortunately Munns is neither renowned for his analytical or his special effects expertise. For a start there is debate over if some of the "motions" Munns has analysed are movements of the suit, or in film artefacts of exposure and background bleed. More obviously, some of the "impossible" movements are possible with out complications. IIRC more were more issues with portraying non sequential frames for contrast but not discussing sequential frames?

Hi TomTom,The outcome of Mr Munns research is quite a simple one could Mr Patterson have made a fake monkey suit of that quality and I think the answer to that is no.

[TomTomKent]

Hi TomTom,The outcome of Mr Munns research is quite a simple one could Mr Patterson have made a fake monkey suit of that quality and I think the answer to that is no.

Hiring one on the other hand... From Philip and Amy Morris for example, who made ape costumes for carnivals and other performances, who claim not only to have supplied a suit to Patterson with advice on making the arms longer and capable of moving. None of which is beyond possible.

The outcome of the research is simple: it is flawed. At best it suffers a confirmation bias, but in reality it suffers because even if we offer every faith in his special effects expertise, he is not a film analyst and he is operating outside of his expertise, often to try and justify the conclusion he has already reached.

We know Patterson already intended to film a staged bigfoot sighting for his film sighting. We know he had the means and equipment to film a man in a suit. We know that when Greg Long spoke to Bob Heironomous about it he was more than happy to confirm he was in the suit, with the head raised "impossibly" by wearing a football helmet under the mask and the "impossible" breasts and muscle form produced by foam padding. We can trace the film clip to the pseudo documentary Patterson was meant to be making for ANE.

Munns analysis is not the one that will overcome the obvious mundane explanations I am afraid. That he can't see how the special effects could be produced is not the same as their being impossible. He was a better special effects designer than I could be, but so are an awful lot of people. His work on "Swamp Thing" for example is not legendary for the best of reasons. As I said before, some of what he attributes to the creature, or the suit, is an artefact of the film. So even when he is right, that some things can not be explained by a suit, he assumes it must be explained by the film being of bigfoot and not the film being plagued by artefacts, marks, exposure, etc.

[kensei]

Sorry there is no cancelling out. There is a burden of proof on the claim. Either the film can be shown to be genuine, or it can be shown to have been faked multiple ways. That there are many other explanations that might also be considered adds weight against the primary claim.

For example, if I were to film myself levitating, my claim would not be considered more viable just because my critics showed I could appear to levitate in an identical way through computer effects, use of wires, or smoke and mirrors. These do not cancel each other out, they are all possible explanations that I will have to counter to overcome a null hypothesis: that I appear to do something outside of nature through mundane means.

When guys are trying to sell a film that includes a Sasquatch, and they then seem amazed to have filmed something that looks like a Sasquatch, I would be sceptical. Just as I would if a low budget horror film claimed to show a real ghost.

What I mean by canceling out is that there is more than one person who claims to be the person in the suit, more than one story with completely different details as to how it was faked. Therefore, no single such story is proof that the film is a fake because since they cannot all be true then it is possible for them all to be lies. And if it counts against Patterson that he was actually looking for Bigfoot when he claims to have filmed one, then all such people may as well give up because if they ever succeed they will not be believed for that reason. (And actually, it was Patterson's stated intention to try and find fresh Bigfoot tracks to film for the documentary he was working on. To actually come across the creature in the flesh was something that he of course hoped for but did not realistically intend.)

[Scorpio]

I first saw this famous footage on ARTHUR C CLARKES MYSTERIOUS WORLD: a show that seems to belong to another age. I was never quite convinced though. However, I do have great regards for the footage; it has a strange power.

[GUT]

Just watched it yet again, looks a lot like me when my backs bad.

[TomTomKent]

What I mean by canceling out is that there is more than one person who claims to be the person in the suit, more than one story with completely different details as to how it was faked. Therefore, no single such story is proof that the film is a fake because since they cannot all be true then it is possible for them all to be lies. And if it counts against Patterson that he was actually looking for Bigfoot when he claims to have filmed one, then all such people may as well give up because if they ever succeed they will not be believed for that reason. (And actually, it was Patterson's stated intention to try and find fresh Bigfoot tracks to film for the documentary he was working on. To actually come across the creature in the flesh was something that he of course hoped for but did not realistically intend.)

It doesn't count against Patterson that he was "looking for" Bigfoot, but it does count against him that he was looking to film a staged encounter with Somebody portraying Bigfoot for his ANE film.

The scene was to be a dramatic reconstruction and footage of the Native Americans tribesmen who would see Bigfoot in the distance survives. The documentary was not as many assume a wildlife film trying to show Squatch frolicking, but was about the legends IIRC.

[TomTomKent]

I first saw this famous footage on ARTHUR C CLARKES MYSTERIOUS WORLD: a show that seems to belong to another age. I was never quite convinced though. However, I do have great regards for the footage; it has a strange power.

Absolutely. That it has no real evidence that the creature is any more than a hired suit cleverly filmed does not mean it can not be appreciated for that spine tingle. If the man who made the special effects for Swamp Thing is convinced it is real? Just shows how effective the haunting quality is.

I would love somebody to prove this real, and I spent a long time trying to do just that. But alas, knowing who supplied the cameras, suit, additional fake fur and advice on augmenting the costume, the name of the man in the suit, etc, the more likely explanation is mundane in terms of crypto biology, but just as wonderful. By the same token, I find the Turin Shroud no less haunting or full of wonder just because I am not a believer. Patter sons film will be delightful no matter what it shows.