patterson gimlin film

[kensei]

For what it's worth- Two people examined the film site in the days after the filming when the creature's tracks were still to be seen. The first was Lyle Laverty who if memory serves was a forestry agent of some kind, who took some photos of the tracks. The second was Bob Titmus, a well known figure in Bigfoot lore. He was a taxidermist and expert animal tracker who lived in the area. Neither of these men found any red flags that pointed to a hoax, and Titmus spent considerable time at the site making plaster casts of the footprints and tracking the creature well into the forest away from the site. He even found a spot uphill from the site that appeared to show where the creature had sat down in some ferns, possibly watching Patterson and Gimlin down below.

[TomTomKent]

But what if the dog found him?

Found whom? Bigfoot of the actor who may have been filmed on a completely different day during the filming of the ANE project? If the clip were culled from the project we have no reason to believe it was filmed as and when described. We have good reason to believe it may not (as if I recall part of the PG film has been discovered in context in the surviving ANE film).

[GUT]

Why foolhardy? If it were a hoax having dogs failing to find a trail would do no harm to his story, because they would not prove a negative and would be taken by those willing to believe as a sign of good faith.

But what if the dog found him?

[TomTomKent]

Why foolhardy? If it were a hoax having dogs failing to find a trail would do no harm to his story, because they would not prove a negative and would be taken by those willing to believe as a sign of good faith.

There is a determination by those who accept the film as genuine to also accept the whole story. Why would he need to camp around a few days? Why not? As far as we can tell from the available evidence the footage may have been in the can and clipped from his existing film. There is no reason to assume the fantastic version of events as inherently more honest than those claiming to have worn a suit, supplied a suit, etc. We have footage of the pseudo documentary and no reason to assume those involved in the production would lie their parts in the filming, supplying props or material.

But at the end of the day the burden of proof lays in the hands of those advocating the fantastic claim. If there is equal evidence for a mundane explanation the null is in place. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. Evidence that looks exactly like a film produced for the ANE film, clipped from that project, is going to seem more likely to fit the mundane explanation than the fantastic.

[kensei]

There seem to be a lot of people sayting "we know this" and "we know that" about the Patterson film being faked, and about how there have been "confessions." I would just like to point out that one cannot really know anything for a fact in such cases based solely on what someone says, because it is an unfortunate part of the human condition that people tell lies, sometimes to an astonishing degree. Of course there are people who claim to know in intricate detail how Patterson faked his Bigfoot film. There are no doubt also people who claim to know how Elvis faked his death.

In fairness, I should turn this back on myself and admit that we cannot be sure of the "facts" given by Patterson and Gimlin either. For instance, their story includes them camping and exploring the area for several days before they had the Bigfoot encounter, unnecessary if they were just there to make a fake film. It also includes Gimlin, not Patterson, suggesting on Oct. 20th that they check out the area in which the filming occurred, making any scenario in which Patterson had costume-man lying in wait unknown to Gimlin impossible. And even if that scenario did somehow occur, Gimlin (who is still alive by the way and does not waver from the story) says he drew his rifle and pointed it at the Bigfoot, never putting it to his shoulder but just covering Patterson as he shot the film. Costume-man therefore would have been risking his life and could not have been sure that Gimlin's adrenaline wouldn't get the better of him. Any hoax scenario, it seems, would have had to have Gimlin in on it and yet his lack of any financial gain from it is well known. But as I said, the two mens' story cannot be considered fact as it is mostly unwitnessed by anyone else. Maybe the whole thing is made up. Maybe Gimlin did profit secretly. Maybe, maybe, maybe... I just think that the stories of any and all who say they know it's a hoax and the details thereof need to be given just as much scrutiny as Patterson and Gimlin themselves.

There have been no true "confessions." The only real confessions would be from Patterson or Gimlin fessing up. Patterson died a few years after the filming from Hodgkin's Disease never having done so, and Gimlin to this day makes occasional appearances at Bigfoot conferences and has never changed his story. Admittedly, Roger Patterson was a jack of all trades and master of none who had a personality that many might have seen as being capable of a hoax, not helped at all by the fact that he owed money on the camera rental and a warrant for his arrest was issued because of it (though that would seem to negate any idea of his being paid money for making the film). But I tend to see him as a kind of fly by night character who had one insanely lucky day.

By the way, it is a matter of record that in the immediate aftermath of the filming Patterson called a museum in British Columbia where he had contacts to try and have tracking dogs brought to the film site to pick up the creature's trail. This did not end up materalizing, but he could not have known that it would not. If he'd been staging a hoax, what more foolhardy a move could he have possibly made?

[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.

[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.

[GUT]

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

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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 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]

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]

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.