The Patterson Footage .....

Bingo, exactly my point. So many people in this thread were saying that everybody in Hollywood claimed they couldn't recreate this suit and I knew that to be 100% false for this exact reason. Also, again, unnamed TECHNICIANS means absolutely jack shit. Who were these technicians and what was their job within the department? Also, what would someone who is the head of the Documentary department have to do with special effects? Documentaries are 100% without special effects.

All of those things adding together make it very clear that not a single person in the special effects industry has ever stated that they couldn't make that suit. So many people are watching this grainy footage and reading too much into it... muscle movement, distinct toes, all kinds of crap that simply is not in the film. Yeah, sure, with 15 filters and all kinds of "enhancement" you can find things that certainly weren't there. That video has so much noise and is so grainy that nobody could find anything in that unless they really wanted to believe.

Again, the whole thing reeks of the Surgeons Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster. So many people claimed they were 100% authentic by measuring the size of the ripples in the water, the waves, all kinds of batshit crazy stuff. Then, sure as shit, turned out to be 100% fake and made with about a 10" wooden toy. So all these people claiming the waves and ripples showed it was something like 10-15 feet long looked beyond stupid. But they were "scientists" who had "credentials." LMAO

From the wiki. A professional, by name, commenting on the film.

Janos Prohaska. After viewing the Patterson–Gimlin film with John Green,[114] costume designer and ape-suit mime Janos Prohaska (noted for his work in the late-1960s television programs Star Trek and Lost in Space) concluded the film's subject looked real to him. When asked if he thought the film was faked, Prohaska replied, "I don't think so ... to me it looks very, very real." If the film was hoaxed, Prohaska thought, it was remarkably realistic and sophisticated, and the best costume he had ever seen, and the only plausible explanation was that someone might have glued false hair "directly to the actor's skin."

That aside, here's an interesting bio-mechanical breakdown of the gait/walk by an expert.

Dr. Dmitri D. Donskoy
Chief of the Dept. of Biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture in Moscow, 1973

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all the strides the movement of the arms and of the legs is well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by that of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is a must for man, and is natural in many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds (in walking and trotting, for instance).

The strides are energetic and big, with the leg swung far forward. When man extends the leg that far he walks very fast and thus overcomes by momentum the "braking effect" of the virtual prop that is provided by the forward leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed, so the more massive the biped the less speed (and vice versa) is needed to overcome the braking effect of the leading leg in striding.

The arms move in swinging motions, which means the muscles are exerted at the beginning of each cycle, after which they relax and the movement continues by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong.

After each heel strike the creature's leg bends, taking on the full weight of the body and smoothing over the impact of the step, acting as a shock absorber. During this phase certain muscles of the leg are extended and become tense in preparation for the subsequent toe-off.

In a normal human walk such considerable knee flexion as is exhibited by the film creature is not observed; it is practiced only in cross country skiing. This characteristic makes one think that the creature is very heavy and its toe-off is powerful, which would contribute to rapid progression.

In the swinging of the leg, considerable flexion is observed in the joints, with different parts of the limb lagging behind each other: the foot's movement is behind the shank's, which is behind the hip's. This kind of movement is peculiar to massive limbs with well-relaxed muscles. In such a case the movements of the limbs look fluid and easy, with no breaks or jerks in the extreme points of each cycle. The creature uses to great advantage the effect of muscle resilience, which is scarcely used by modern man in the usual conditions of life.

The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and exhibit no signs of loss of balance, of wavering, or any redundant movements. In the two strides during which the creature makes a turn to the right, in the direction of the camera, the movement is accomplished with a turn of the torso. This reveals alertness and, possibly, a somewhat limited mobility of the head. (True, in some critical situations man also turns his whole torso and not just head alone.) During the turn the creature spreads its arms widely to increase stability.

In the toe-off phase the sole of the creature's foot is visible. By human standards it is large for the height of the creature. No longitudinal arch typical of the human foot is in view. The hind part of the foot formed by the heel bone protrudes considerably back. Such proportions and anatomy facilitate the work of the muscles which make standing postures possible and increase the force of propulsion in walking. Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature.

The movements are harmonious and repeated uniformly from step to step; harmony is provided by synergy (the combined operation of a whole group of muscles).

Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and its walk swifter than that of man.

Lastly, we can note a characteristic of the creature's walk that defies exact description: expressiveness of movement. In man this quality is sometimes manifest in goal-oriented sporting or labor activities, and leaves the impression of economy and accuracy of movement. This characteristic can be noted by an experienced observer even if he does not know the specifics of a given activity. “What need be done is neatly done” is another way of describing expressiveness of movement, which indicates that the motor system characterized by this quality is well adapted to the task it is called upon to perform. In other words, neat perfection is typical of those movements which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing is the consistency of all the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only simply occur, but interact in many ways. And all these factors taken together allow us to evaluate the walk of the creature as a natural movement, without any signs of artfulness that would appear in intentional imitations.

At the same time, despite the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as is demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.
 
raw

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_xM6S1O620QE/TdttAUOO8YI/AAAAAAAAsS4/Z-EtFJRbe6k/s800/:eek::eek::eek::eek:bear-Bigfoot.gif

BigfootGIF_10.gif
 
Please do so as so far everyone keeps claiming this is true, but no one is posting the actual testimonials by actual Hollywood special effects / costume departments saying that CAN'T make this suit.

This all reminds me of Alien Autopsy from the mid 1990's where they have all of these alleged special effects guys around a board room table and they're showing them this video. All these guys are saying "no way in hell could we do this" or "it's super difficult and near impossible" to do this. Then it turns out the video was 100% faked by, yet again, amateurs. What about the famous crop circles across from Stonehenge that couldn't possibly be created by humans because of the way the grains ran in some kind of pattern? Oh yeah, take two guys, both named Dave, with a piece of 2x4 and a rope, and they certainly did something that was impossible.

I understand the want and desire to believe in Bigfoot. I spent the first 10 years of my life in Washington state and I was convinced as a kid that they existed. Of course I also believed in the tooth fairy and santa clause until I was about 6-7 so it shows how gullible I was back then.

Well, alright. Lets start with a man named Bill Munn's. Bill Munn's has been a makeup artist and special effects artist in Hollywood for decades. He actually is a Hollywood costume designer that understands all the modern techniques of costume making. He is well known for his expertise in this area. One thing you have to realize is that most of the video's of the Patterson/Gimlin event are copies, note, not original. This leaves artifacts that make the study of the film more difficult.

Bill Munn's is one of the only people alive that has been given access to a "first generation" copy of the original film for study, which is owned by Patricia Patterson and has been kept in a bank vault for decades. I would strongly suggest you watch this short video which will show you what the best version of the film looks like and listen to what Munn's says. He may not discuss his costume making expertise but his testimony is compelling. He states that the bend in the knee makes it almost certain that is not a human. Munn studied the film for a year and a half and concluded that it was not a human in a costume.

Munn's produced the most clear and stunning footage of the Patterson film ever viewed. As I said, I highly recommend you watch this.

 
sure - in that there are interviews with the guy who created the suits for Planet of the Apes who said he couldn't make it.

you have anthropologists who said the movement was too exact to be duplicated.

the BBC spent thousands trying to duplicate it and their result was a hilarious fail - i'll get you the links

What the fuck would an anthropologist know?
 
What the fuck would an anthropologist know?

I quoted what an expert in biomechanics had to say in post #145. Scroll up and give it a read if you're interested in an in depth analysis of the subject's movement.
 
Last edited:
Jesus. People still buying this old crap?

It's a guy in a suit FFS
 
thanks for outing yourself as the guy who's never bothered to research the video

Ok bro. And thanks for outing yourself as perpetually gullible.

Funny how the same names pop up in every thread like this. It's like you guys have to believe in some nonsense or other to be happy
 
From the wiki. A professional, by name, commenting on the film.

Janos Prohaska. After viewing the Patterson–Gimlin film with John Green,[114] costume designer and ape-suit mime Janos Prohaska (noted for his work in the late-1960s television programs Star Trek and Lost in Space) concluded the film's subject looked real to him. When asked if he thought the film was faked, Prohaska replied, "I don't think so ... to me it looks very, very real." If the film was hoaxed, Prohaska thought, it was remarkably realistic and sophisticated, and the best costume he had ever seen, and the only plausible explanation was that someone might have glued false hair "directly to the actor's skin."

That aside, here's an interesting bio-mechanical breakdown of the gait/walk by an expert.

I can't find a single thing about the Russian scientist even existing so I can't validate any claim made by him.

Funny though that you're insistent on quoting the wiki when you're obviously leaving out the special effects artists who claim the video was certainly faked, including famed special effects artist Rick Baker.

"Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now It Can Be Told" show (in 1992) that "it looked like cheap, fake fur," after seeing the subject in Patterson's filmstrip."

"Ellis Burman. The Guenettes (Robert & Frances) wrote of him, "I also spoke to Ellis Burman of Burman Studios in Hollywood, creators of all kinds of strange creatures, including a fake Bigfoot for a traveling 'pickle and punk' carnival exhibit. Burman denied his company created the Patterson Bigfoot, but did say he could duplicate it—but for more than $10,000 in total costs."

"Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day"

Regardless, I asked for something and you delivered, so props to you. I think it's all "hit and miss" in terms of how people think, I just didn't believe the notion that "everybody in Hollywood agrees this couldn't have been faked" when that's clearly not true.
 
I wish scientists would concentrate on finding new species on Earth, rather than on other planets.

Isn't 90% of the ocean unexplored? It's crazy to think we are more interested in other planets, when we have hardly explored our own one.
 
I can't find a single thing about the Russian scientist even existing so I can't validate any claim made by him.

Funny though that you're insistent on quoting the wiki when you're obviously leaving out the special effects artists who claim the video was certainly faked, including famed special effects artist Rick Baker.

"Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now It Can Be Told" show (in 1992) that "it looked like cheap, fake fur," after seeing the subject in Patterson's filmstrip."

"Ellis Burman. The Guenettes (Robert & Frances) wrote of him, "I also spoke to Ellis Burman of Burman Studios in Hollywood, creators of all kinds of strange creatures, including a fake Bigfoot for a traveling 'pickle and punk' carnival exhibit. Burman denied his company created the Patterson Bigfoot, but did say he could duplicate it—but for more than $10,000 in total costs."

"Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day"

Regardless, I asked for something and you delivered, so props to you. I think it's all "hit and miss" in terms of how people think, I just didn't believe the notion that "everybody in Hollywood agrees this couldn't have been faked" when that's clearly not true.

I never said there weren't any people who've claimed to be able to pull it off, I just said that they never have.

The Russian is legit. If you have Netflix, he's mentioned in the "Bigfoot's Reflection" documentary along with an image of him. His image appears at around the 37:05 mark if you don't wish to view the entire thing. The dude supposedly prepared Russian athletes for the Olympics.
 
Last edited:
Well, alright. Lets start with a man named Bill Munn's. Bill Munn's has been a makeup artist and special effects artist in Hollywood for decades. He actually is a Hollywood costume designer that understands all the modern techniques of costume making. He is well known for his expertise in this area. One thing you have to realize is that most of the video's of the Patterson/Gimlin event are copies, note, not original. This leaves artifacts that make the study of the film more difficult.

Bill Munn's is one of the only people alive that has been given access to a "first generation" copy of the original film for study, which is owned by Patricia Patterson and has been kept in a bank vault for decades. I would strongly suggest you watch this short video which will show you what the best version of the film looks like and listen to what Munn's says. He may not discuss his costume making expertise but his testimony is compelling. He states that the bend in the knee makes it almost certain that is not a human. Munn studied the film for a year and a half and concluded that it was not a human in a costume.

Munn's produced the most clear and stunning footage of the Patterson film ever viewed. As I said, I highly recommend you watch this.



I will just say that this was produced by NatGeo, the same people who have produced not one, but two documentaries about Mermaids. They are 100% about entertainment value and will let anybody say anything as long as it's interesting, regardless of it being fact or fiction. The video is OK but I still see it as "enhancing" what was truly in the original video. The stuff about the walk was interesting but as others have stated wearing clown shoes alters the walk of a human and it looks extremely like what we see in the video.
 
I will just say that this was produced by NatGeo, the same people who have produced not one, but two documentaries about Mermaids. They are 100% about entertainment value and will let anybody say anything as long as it's interesting, regardless of it being fact or fiction. The video is OK but I still see it as "enhancing" what was truly in the original video. The stuff about the walk was interesting but as others have stated wearing clown shoes alters the walk of a human and it looks extremely like what we see in the video.

Don't know what to tell you. I find the video compelling. What you are basically saying is that you don't care what Bill Munn says even though he is a makeup and costume maker for Hollywood who has seen the original footage and worked on it for a year and a half reconstructing a HD version of the film and examining it frame by frame.
 
To this day, it has never been proven false. The numerous hoax claims have been discredited, and I believe it is legit.

It's nearly impossible to prove a negative like that when the culprits are willing to lie. Clearly those scam artists didn't find bigfoot on day one of their search. You're so fucking gullible if you believe that.


Special effects professionals to this day say they can't make a suit that has muscle movement and hair placement as real as that footage.

This is bullshit too. People absolutely can create something just as good as that, even back then. It's not even hard at all and unless you have the creativity of a 2 year old, I'd imagine you could pull it off too.



I believe most of the Bigfoot videos out there are fake, but I believe the Patterson footage - which just so happens to be the most famous - does show a unique animal. I believe Bigfoot may no longer exist, but faded out - but that Patterson and Gimlin caught one of them on video. I hope this thread evolves into solid debate from both sides, with good evidence being brought fourth.

C8ButtSepF308F309AG1Large1.gif


greenarrow2.gif


Again, this Patterson footage is complete bullshit. There's nothing special in this footage and only crazy people think it's real. No legitimate scientists or special effects people think this footage is real either.

This footage is made up by two scam artists looking to make a buck. It's that simple. There's zero reason to believe this footage is authentic. They scammed together money with the intentions of finding bigfoot, and just so happen to find one on the first day looking? Fucking no way.

Bigfoot is fake. There are no 200+ lb monkeys roaming the woods of North America and dozens of other nations for hundreds of years without a single piece of verifiable physical evidence of their existence. When is the last time someone even discovered a completely new species that large in the United States? For something that large to survive in our wilderness, we would find ample evidence of it's existence.

I swear you people are some gullible fucks. You'll believe any stupid little story to have hope that there's something special left in this world to be discovered. Sorry you're wrong.

The only new species scientists are discovering in America are butterflies, ants, and other incredibly small animals that can stay undiscovered in their habitats. Large apes are not playing "hide from society" in the United States.

You fucking people should be ashamed for believing this crap.
 
Okay, let's assume this is real footage. Why is this the only footage and where is the other evidence? Apparently Bigfoot doesn't live somewhere in the Himalayas, deep in the Amazon or in some other remote location. Some simple cowboys, as you called them yourself, were able to capture this footage. Why isn't there any other evidence, like footprints, feces, hair samples or evidence of any dwellings? We're dealing with a 9ft tall humanoid in an accessible location, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people looking for it. Why isn't there more evidence?

Print evidence is rather plentiful. Many a cast has been made. John A Bindernagel is a good source if you want to look into the track evidence.

Hair and scat samples aren't always identifiable. It's incredibly unlikely that DNA can be gotten from shed hairs. Below is an article that does a good job of outlining the process, as far as hair and scat samples go.

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/86-analysis-feces-and-hair

The authors have examined five specimens of preserved feces and three specimens of animal hair suspected to be of Sasquatch or Bigfoot origin. They find that two of the fecal and two of the hair specimens are definitely attributable to known animals, but the remaining samples are not. Recognizing the limited sample studied, they call for further such analyses to ascertain the origin of the unidentified specimens.

Other videos exist that can be argued about, BTW. The PG film is just the most famous, but it's not the only one out there to debate.
 
Last edited:
I never said there weren't any people who've claimed to be able to pull it off, I just said that they never have.

The Russian is legit. If you have Netflix, he's mentioned in the "Bigfoot's Reflection" documentary along with an image of him. His image appears at around the 37:05 mark if you don't wish to view the entire thing. The dude supposedly prepared Russian athletes for the Olympics.

Bigfoot's Reflection is a good doc, thanks for pointing me in that direction.
 
Again, this Patterson footage is complete bullshit. There's nothing special in this footage and only crazy people think it's real. No legitimate scientists or special effects people think this footage is real either.

That's absolutely not true. Meldrum takes it seriously and he is an anthropologist at Iowa State university and Bill Munn is one of the most experienced costume designers and special effects artists in Hollywood with decades of experience and he takes the film seriously, saying that there is no way that is a man in a suit. You may disagree but you can't claim that only "crazy people" believe it. Its just not true.
 
I've thought about this a lot and I am basically unsure. The most convincing aspect to me is the hair and the fact that it clearly has breasts. Like who thinks to do that for a hoax?

But the face throws me off and makes me think hoax.


I honestly don't know.
 
Back
Top