patterson gimlin film

[TomTomKent]

A lot more detail can be seen on that film now thanks to computer technology it has breasts which move like breasts should there is a hernia on the thigh the detail is too good for a fake.Roger Patterson didn't need to have a suit that good in 1967 because the technology wasn't there to enhance the film then.Why go over 400 miles to film a hoax in the middle of nowhere when you live next to an area of bigfoot sightings?

Because he wasn't filming a hoax. He was filming the known project that he took some footage from.

It has breasts that move like breasts, because the costume was designed to do just that. The hernia is arguable based on interpretation. What was too good for a fake was expected for a movie production. If you go to a costume supplier are you really going to ask if they have less convincing costumes in stock because you are using low quality film? No. And remember this was a costume supplied by somebody who supplied to carnivals and shows that had to convince live audiences.

Just out of interest have you compared the PG film creature to the one in the ANE film footage? I think Cracked had a great comparison image in their "15 paranormal photos with explanations" photoplasty article. If not to convince you, then at least to see the sceptics point of view.

[pinkmoon]

Maybrick diary

There will never be anything in the films content that can be used to say it's genuine and again there will nothing in the film to say it's fake this argument will run for another 47 years.This is very similar situation to the Maybrick diary can never be proven either way.

[pinkmoon]

Because he wasn't filming a hoax. He was filming the known project that he took some footage from.

It has breasts that move like breasts, because the costume was designed to do just that. The hernia is arguable based on interpretation. What was too good for a fake was expected for a movie production. If you go to a costume supplier are you really going to ask if they have less convincing costumes in stock because you are using low quality film? No. And remember this was a costume supplied by somebody who supplied to carnivals and shows that had to convince live audiences.

Just out of interest have you compared the PG film creature to the one in the ANE film footage? I think Cracked had a great comparison image in their "15 paranormal photos with explanations" photoplasty article. If not to convince you, then at least to see the sceptics point of view.

What is ANE film footage?

[TomTomKent]

There will never be anything in the films content that can be used to say it's genuine and again there will nothing in the film to say it's fake this argument will run for another 47 years.This is very similar situation to the Maybrick diary can never be proven either way.

Which is why the burden of proof lays on the fantastic claim. If you want to claim Maybrick was the Ripper you provide evidence, or you have nothing but an interesting idea. If you want to claim the PG film shows life unknown to science, like Bigfoot then the burden of proof is yours. Obviously until such evidence is provided the balance should lean towards the mundane explanations.

[TomTomKent]

What is ANE film footage?

The film that Patterson was producing that included a man playing a Bigfoot.

[TomTomKent]

This is a brief overview of the ANE film we know Patterson was producing including his contract:

http://bigfootfilm67.webs.com/ron-olson-ane

So a nice simple comparison of stills from Pattersons documentary to the PG film is here in the number one spot:

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_680_15-famous-paranormal-photos-explained-by-science_p2/

A summary of the arguments:

http://xzonenation.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/exposing-roger-pattersons-1967-bigfoot.html

[pinkmoon]

This is a brief overview of the ANE film we know Patterson was producing including his contract:

http://bigfootfilm67.webs.com/ron-olson-ane

So a nice simple comparison of stills from Pattersons documentary to the PG film is here in the number one spot:

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_680_15-famous-paranormal-photos-explained-by-science_p2/

A summary of the arguments:
http://xzonenation.blogspot.co.uk/20...7-bigfoot.html

Thank you.

[TomTomKent]

Thank you.

Not a problem. I am used to talking about this subject in other forums where such information is a given and forgot to clarify here. I tend to have the same problem when talking about Canonical Victims of Leather Apron at other sites. So completely my bad.

[pinkmoon]

when roger met patty

Read Bill munns book when roger met patty twice and I will have to say the only realistic outcome you can come to is that patty is the real deal.Bill munns has worked in the special effects business for over 40 years and knows what he is talking about quite simple can't make a fake monkey suit to replicate patty today let alone 47 years ago.

[Jonathan H]

The movie is a fake and a crude one, but you cannot help but feel a measure of affection for it.

We can even see interviewed the guy who was in the suit, poor basterd,

BigFoot was a hoax from 1958 that got out of hand, so why not a hoax film?

[Amanda]

Would love to believe....

The movie is a fake and a crude one, but you cannot help but feel a measure of affection for it.

We can even see interviewed the guy who was in the suit, poor basterd,

BigFoot was a hoax from 1958 that got out of hand, so why not a hoax film?

Hi Jonathan,

Would love to believe this but my gut feeling says naaaahhh!

The big giveaway for me is the soles of the feet, they're white/covered in snow.
If a gorilla-like creature walks through the snow, the snow would not stick to the foot completely, as their footpads are a very leathery texture & the snow would slide off. There would be patches but not a full covering.

Anyway, off to Loch Ness now, it's Nessie's lunchtime
Amanda

[Jonathan H]

To Amanda

There's a terrific book about the Bigfoot hoax, how and where they got the suit from, and so on. Very entertaining, though tinged with sadness because the hoaxer was terminally ill.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Bigfoot-Inside-Story/dp/1591021391

And this is in my opinion the definitive book about the Nessie hoax:

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Solved-Science-Paranormal-Series/dp/0879752785

Interestingly both are self-generated hoaxes in the sense that they play upon the notion that here long-standing legends about these creatures.

They're weren't.

[sdreid]

Is it my imagination or are we hearing about fewer bigfoot sightings of late? Hopefully it's finally extinct.

[kensei]

The movie is a fake and a crude one, but you cannot help but feel a measure of affection for it.

We can even see interviewed the guy who was in the suit, poor basterd,

BigFoot was a hoax from 1958 that got out of hand, so why not a hoax film?

There have been multiple people claimed to be the one in the alleged suit, either people admitting to it themselves or accused of it by others. Since they cannot all be true, collectively they mean nothing. And even if the film is a fake (which I don't believe it is), it is anything but "crude." There are many fake Bigfoot films and many of them are crude, even laughably so. If Patterson's is a fake it is the best ever done.

And by no means did Bigfoot begin in 1958. Reports of encounters with them by white men go back well into the 19th century, and the Indian stories go back so far into history that they have no clear begining. The Vikings even reported encountering beings that sound remarkably like Bigfoot when they first landed in America.

[kensei]

Hi Jonathan,

Would love to believe this but my gut feeling says naaaahhh!

The big giveaway for me is the soles of the feet, they're white/covered in snow.
If a gorilla-like creature walks through the snow, the snow would not stick to the foot completely, as their footpads are a very leathery texture & the snow would slide off. There would be patches but not a full covering.

Anyway, off to Loch Ness now, it's Nessie's lunchtime
Amanda

The soles of the feet are not white, they are light gray. And that is not snow. It is sand. The footage was shot in October before the snow came. You seem to have noticed that the feet are the exact same color of the ground the creature is walking on but not really realized what you were looking at. It was standing in shallow water in a creek when the men first came upon it. As it walked away, its feet were wet and the sand stuck to them. There are photographs and plaster casts of the footprints the creature left, the shape of which exactly match the feet seen in the film. The length of those tracks has been used as a measuring stick to deduce the size of the creature and they put its height at nearly seven feet.