Skeptical breakdown of Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage, the dark side of the coin
As we all know, there are two sides to every coin. Numerous emails have been sent to us from people who are highly skeptical of the Patterson-Gimlin film. We have ask these people many times to send us an analysis proving that the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin footage was a person in an ape costume. So far, we have not seen any new evidence proving that it was indeed a man in a costume. (We'll check our email again in the morning and maybe the proof will come in our inbox)
We're not talking about "old" evidence such as the National Geographic (2005) episode of "Is it real?" with Bob Hieronimous claiming he was the person in the costume filmed by Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek CA in 1967. It's possible Hieronimous was telling the truth (and even passed the lie detector test twice), but according to the most recent Bigfoot documentary by National Geographic: "American Paranormal: Bigfoot", the math does not fit. Anatomical experts now say the proportions of the creature in the film are wrong for a human and right for an ape. Many people remain unconvinced and are still on the fence about the PGF. This is why it's important to keep the debate alive.
We at Bigfoot Evidence blog thrive on giving people a fair shake. So, here's the latest article proving the P/G film was a complete hoax. Please note that when we pushed for an explanation about the claim that the Bigfoot in the film was a hoax, the author of the post below said the actions and controversy surrounding Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin should be enough evidence to prove that it was a hoax.
The Patterson Gimlin Film Hoax PROVEN
What you think, what you know, and what you can prove are often very different scenarios as I was reminded recently by a colleague. This is especially true when concerning the Patterson Gimlin film of an alleged sasquatch/bigfoot. On October 20th 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured film of a sasquatch and documented part of its trackway along with making plaster casts of the imprints left by the film subject.
I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting a track there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting. There is not. The footprint is now present in the footage of 4 imprints. The ground in the previous footage of Patterson making the cast shows flat mud and no impression. (no following track present!) I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression. (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)
It is not coincidence that Krantz documents Pattersons actions just by wild chance.
on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:
'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'
The case of the missing print. How ironic is it that Patterson filmed proof of his own hoax?
Proof the PGF is a hoax. This is not speculation, nor is it condemnation. This isn't about my opinion, or yours or any acredited scientists. The evidence is right there on the film. Patterson and Gimlin did what no one else has been able to do since. Don't hate. I appreciate the legend, and the story that has become famous world wide. Instead of bashing Patterson and Gimlin - I thank them for the entertainment and for accomplishing one of the best hoaxes in our time.
River
What you think, what you know, and what you can prove are often very different scenarios as I was reminded recently by a colleague. This is especially true when concerning the Patterson Gimlin film of an alleged sasquatch/bigfoot. On October 20th 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured film of a sasquatch and documented part of its trackway along with making plaster casts of the imprints left by the film subject.
I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting a track there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting. There is not. The footprint is now present in the footage of 4 imprints. The ground in the previous footage of Patterson making the cast shows flat mud and no impression. (no following track present!) I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression. (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)
It is not coincidence that Krantz documents Pattersons actions just by wild chance.
on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:
'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'
The case of the missing print. How ironic is it that Patterson filmed proof of his own hoax?
Proof the PGF is a hoax. This is not speculation, nor is it condemnation. This isn't about my opinion, or yours or any acredited scientists. The evidence is right there on the film. Patterson and Gimlin did what no one else has been able to do since. Don't hate. I appreciate the legend, and the story that has become famous world wide. Instead of bashing Patterson and Gimlin - I thank them for the entertainment and for accomplishing one of the best hoaxes in our time.
River
[via: pgfhoax.blogspot.com]
Roger Patterson wrote a book about bigfoot BEFORE he filmed the famous October 1967 footage. In Patterson's book, there are sasquatch illustrations. Doesn't it seem a bit too coincidental that he would later film a sasquatch that looks like the drawing in his book, a female bigfoot complete with breasts? Also, what are the odds that someone who travels to California looking for bigfoot just happens to find one and films it (and it happens to look like a female bigfoot with breasts, like in his book)? This seems to cast doubt on the validity of the famous footage. Perhaps this was a hoax that turned out better than Patterson could have hoped for.
ReplyDeleteDo you know Patterson was quoted saying"i shouldve shot the damn thing and saved myself the trouble" I dont think he benefitted as mush as people think..Watch the Blevin film youll be convinced that its not possibly a man in a suit..If this guy couldnt even come close today with all the modern technology available how on earth did PG do it fifty years ago ? It just doesnt make sense..
DeleteWell if it wasn't a man in a monkey suit then they must have talked to it and convinced it to walk past them three times so they could shoot the film because forensics has proven the video is three different takes all spliced together to make one film. That proves it's a fake.
DeleteThe entire film may have been edited. The footage of the subject was not in three different takes. http://themunnsreport.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs&feature=youtu.be http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%20INTEGRITY%20OF%20THE%20PATTERSON-GIMLIN%20FILM%20IMAGE_final.pdf
Deleteyou can't see enough to see the other track, these things have huge strides. If it started running ,like they said it did, then for sure you can't see the next track.
ReplyDeleteAnalyze the creature in the film,find where it has a zipper,seam or anything. The article states "Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast " ...these images could be from that for all we know.
People should just look at the creature...study it...find errors in it.people have been trying for 40+ years now...still nothing.
Thanks
people point to the fact that patterson wrote a book and researched bigfoot before he filmed the creature and that proves Nothing. Every person who is interested in any subject read and studies about it. That does not mean they are making a hoax.People making movies about WWII research it before filming.I'm sure Jack Hanna read about wildlife before he ran off filming Lions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the researching before filming is a weak argument.
ReplyDeleteI'm researching as much as I can BEFORE I go out with a camera.I'm looking at one today actually.
If I didn't research first,I'd have no idea where to start.
It's only common sense to approach it in logical steps.
Let's not forget the anitomical (skeletal) overlay. Kinda speaks for itself doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf it's a hoax then someone still has the costume. It's almost identical to the creature I saw, not two years ago, in a remote wilderness area in Northern California. Don't really care if you believe this post or not. I'm not crazy. I know what I saw.
ReplyDeleteI think that Patterson may be guilty of "Crying wolf" to some extent, thus his evidence and its timing seem questionable. However, if not a case of seeing what you want to believe, people still can't seem to disprove the film entirely.
ReplyDeleteThat's wild. I think it's tomorrow I have a post going up about the PGF. I have vacillated on this subject more than any other. The believer in me wants to believe what I'm seeing, but the logical side of me says "does anyone looking for BF find him and get this good a film?"
ReplyDeleteThere are so many people out there who simply just say it's a hoax because they have no circumstantial evidence that it isn't a hoax. Several people, scientists, etc. have tried to debunk this film and no has been able to. Look at the muscle movement, its there. Go on Youtube and look at all the stupid videos people have made that contain obvious fake bigfoots and you can tell it's a costume. There is nothing in the PGF that shows in any form that it could be a costume. And do you really think if it was a costume that back in 1967 they would have even thought to put some breasts on it?? No, Bigfoot was always thought to be a "HE" and not a "SHE" I can't wait to laugh in all the skeptics and non-believers faces when the truth is finally revealed.
ReplyDeleteIts a costume, very easily seen with the lines on the frontal waist, the way the leg sucks in and out like a turtle head on the top portion of the hamstring, (the line on the upper portion of the thigh) also the right leg calf muscle is located on the outter part of the leg, when calf muscles are on the inner parts of the legs, the left leg has no calf muscle at all during the entire walk. Sorry, but people who make claims of the costume being so realistic are more or less just saying, I believe and nothing you can show me can change my mind. I wish it was true, but this is just a guy in a bad suit. "Sasquatch Bigfoot Searching for the facts" FB
DeleteWho would of thought to put breasts on it? Two facts about breasts. When a mother (Mammal-Animal) is nursing they are very big and full (Patty) AND When a mother is nursing and they are big and full...they lose the hair and become just skin. Now, something must be wrong here with Patty, but no one cares to bring that piece of true documentation out in the open now do they?
DeleteThank you for your comment about breasts. I thought I was the only one. They look so fake on the film. They are saggy yet firm as apples in a sack. They look so unnatural. There's no female in the animal kingdom which has hair on their breasts. In fact most of the female mammals have the whole breasts area completely hairless. Dogs, monkeys, horses (almost every kind of mammal) have no hair in the breasts area. Even polar bears have naked nipples, they are hidden a bit by the fur but they are naked.
DeleteSome say they see the muscle movement. What about nipples? (and I am dead serious here!!!). You can clearly see "her" breasts (almost full frontal lighted by the sun) in the film and they are completely covered with hair and have no nipples. And as I wrote earlier they look so fake. They are saggin in unnatural way. Check some photos on the internet of female gorillas or orangutans or even human women from tribes all over the world who live beyond our civilisation. Breasts on the PGF film look like they are hanging too low and they are very oval (like a tennis ball). In reality they would be located a bit higher, they would be more flat and directed more to the sides of the body. The "bigfoot" on the video looks like she has breasts implants of the size and firmness of a tennis ball attached too low to her chest.
I am a bigfoot enthusiast but this film has always looked fake for me. My gut is telling me it's fake. I see it from the first glimpse. There's just something awkward and unnatural in the way this supposed animal walks and behaves. The way it turnes its head to the camera. I have watched too many nature films to believe that this is the way how this animal would behave. There's almost something very "robotic" in its movements.
This is almost something like that when you point a camera on a person who isn't happy about the fact that you filming him or her and tries to behave as usuall but later on the footage everyone (who know this person) can tell that this person doesn't behave naturally.
Big foot on PGF looks exactly like that. Like an animal which tries too hard to behave like an animal but fails.
I bet Andy Serkis (an actor who played Gollum in LOTR and Cesar in the new Planet of the apes) would make more believable Big foot movements.
Anonymous...you are spot on. +1
DeleteTo me the print he is casting in the picture looks like a left foot. You can see the next left print right below his forhead. The right print would have been roughly halfway between the 2, possibly right behind his right elbow and out of view. Can anyone else see that?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first poster. Patterson didn't just research bigfoot before he shot his famous film. His book includes an illustration of a female bigfoot with breasts. Hmmm? What is the likelihood of going to California looking for bigfoot and and finding one (something that bigfoot searchers can't seem to do nowadays with all of their latest high tech equipment) and then filming a bigfoot that happens to look like what he put in his book beforehand.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is smoking crack who wrote this article. He needs to focus his attentions on something else. The "evidence" he presents is a joke. The male in the photo clearly blocks the view of any "prints" that would be in the foreground. Also, his imaginary line showing the strides, etc. is WAY off. How many people/animals walk in a perfectly straight line? Answer: None. Our left foot is slightly to the left. As we step forward, our right footprint will be slightly to the right of our body.
ReplyDeleteIf Patterson and Gimlin were as clever as all the conspiracy theorist say, both men would be gazillionairres. They would have taken all of their science and abilities into the real world and became extremely wealthy. The "monkey suit" technology they had alone would have made them millionaires.
A government study that cost several million dollars determined that if the average human could hold their breath for 15 minutes straight, they could live several years longer. What???? Their reasoning; we wouldn't be breathing in all of the toxins floating around in the air. (Everyone get a stop watch and strart holding your breath. You can do it. They said so!)
Sometimes the most logical people become so illogical when trying to prove/disprove something they dissagree with.
Evidence, YES I said Evidence, ovewhelmingly points to the existence of these creatures living among us in the remote forests of North America. If you don't believe this, let it go!
I would never waste my time arguing against the existence of Santa Claus. If a kid wants to believe, so. I do not get offended by this nor do I attempt to educate the child about the "truth." I know better. Most of these skeptics are what I call CAVE people; Citizens Against Virtually Everything different to them.
A true skeptic of this topic absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything. Regardless of what is presented or who says it.
When a person is doint extensive research on things such as bigfoot, I assume they interview different eyewitness accounts. I am also assuming that their are two diff. types of bigfoots. Male and female.
ReplyDeleteDoes the research/books completed by these men document any drawings of male bigfoots? I don't know but I would assume they do. With this being said; the probability of an eyewitness account of a male sasquatch is 50%. The probability of seeing a female sasquatch is 50%.
Why is this strange? (Again, assuming the book detailed drawings of male bigfoots too.)
CAVE,I have to remember that one.Some people are chronic skeptics and won't accept anything but a living ,breathing Bigfoot shaking hands with them.
ReplyDeleteI've had debates with people on other sites and if I said white,they'd say black.It's just the way some people are.
I could get in to the whole burden of proof thing but it aggravates me.
I haven't gone over the PG film with a fine toothed comb,but it looks like a Sasquatch to me.I am always open to differing opinions and analysis though.
@citizentruth,
ReplyDeleteHey, saw you were looking for a camera. At the beginning of the summer Bigfoot Lunch Club had an article about the Lytro multi field camera. It just came out, and if $400 bucks isn't too expensive it would be worth your time to check it out. You don't have to focus the camera at all, because it captures every field. You just go into the image on your computer when you get home and click on the area you want in focus. No more Blobsquatch! John
Not to speak ill of the dead, according to much that has been written about Patterson's character, ostensibly from people who knew him personally, he was a self promoting, perenially broke charlatan. Patterson wrote a self published book about bigfoot before releasing his famous 1967 footage (the book was mentioned by others above), and before he shot his famous October 1967 film, Patterson supposedly tried to make a film about some cowboys tracking a bigfoot with the help of an Indian guide. Also, there is supposedly a second reel of Patterson footage taken during that same 1967 Bluff Creek trip showing two guys on horseback in the film (that would make at least three people there including Patterson who was filming). Since I did not know Patterson personally, I have no idea if what others have written about Patterson is accurate. There is much written about Patterson's history that leads to the (admittedly strong) ad hominem argument that Patterson perpetuated a hoax. I personally don't entirely dismiss the famous footage as showing an actual sasquatch. However, I do not agree with the many people who claim that a realistic suit could not have been constructed by an amateur such as Patterson. What if Patterson (or a Patterson friend) was a very talented costume maker? The idea that the image in the footage is too realistic (muscle tone, size, etc.) to be faked is also not true. This could have been faked in 1967 or before or after. Many critics of the footage have shown how it could have been done (check the internet for these stories). If Patterson was an upstanding person with an impeccable reputation with no prior bigfoot history, I would be more inclined to believe the validity of the footage. Given his past prior to the famous footage, it seems absolutely incredible that he just happened to find a bigfoot after traveling to California to film one.
ReplyDeleteAnon#2: I spent some time searching Patterson and found stories as well.At least two guys claimed to have made a suit for him.
ReplyDeleteThe a story about an Indian in the suit while Patterson rode his horse.
Unfortunately,none of the stories I read are confirmed.So it's mostly speculation at this point.
So much time has gone by.I understand your point of view and can agree with some of your points.
Anon#1: I already found a camera (the price was right).Thanks for the info though,if I need to upgrade I'll be sure to check it out.The price is good.
I already realised I made a couple mistakes with my purchase.
1.)No night mode-infrared
2.)No flash/light
Upside is it's HD with an 80G HDD and room for a 16G card.Plenty of storage.
I can record video and snap pictures at the same time.
I actually prefer no light giving away anything so it works for me....we'll see.
It has image stabilization as well.
$200 for it and all the trimmings.
Could this film be faked today? Sure, of course it could. In 1967? Now that's where I raise an eyebrow. They hadn't yet invented 4-way stretch faux fur fabric, which would have been necessary to simulate the look of muscles running under the skin. That's not to say it was utterly impossible, but I would love to know just what kind of material they used to make such a fantastic hoax (I'm sure Hollywood would kill to know as well).
ReplyDeleteI do find it odd how easily Patterson was able to snatch such high quality film, yet no one so far has released a similar quality video, including full body and face shots. It's definitely suspicious how the film was obtained, but it is also just as suspicious that an individual person, without the help of expensive Hollywood monster creators could create such a realistic costume that I'm sure even the best would have difficulties duplicating today.
Anon: Here is what i found in answer to your question about the suit material;
ReplyDeleteMorris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris “used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967”.
From Wikipedia:Dynel is a trade name for a type synthetic fiber used in fibre reinforced plastic composite materials, especially for marine applications. As it is easily dyed, it was also used to fabricate women's wigs [1] [2]. A copolymer of acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride, it shares many properties with both polyacrylonitrile (high abrasion resistance, good tensile strength) and PVC (flame resistance). It is an acrylic resin.
Dynel was originally produced by Union Carbide corporation.
Not saying I believe it,but it's posted out there.
Give it up! No one has debunked it yet and none of us are going to. To many professionals have already tried. Let the men have their win and leave them alone. If all these studies like Ketchum, Erricson, Olympic project and any others are legitimate and they actually do have honest to god proof no wonder its taking so long to get it together. They want to cross their T's and dot their I's before they show it to all these NAZI skeptics who try and dispute EVERYTHING.....
ReplyDeleteFrom their perspective, many professionals have already debunked the footage. There is arguably no way to debunk the footage with 100% certainty (other than Gimlin admitting that it was a hoax). Each side will discredit the points of the other. However, to believe that it couldn't possibly have been hoaxed is also not a tenable position.
ReplyDeleteThat PGF hoax thing looks legit as much as I hate to say it. The film doesnt lie? Doesn't look like he gave much of an opinion, just pointed out what is on the film or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's been around so long and is still hotly disputed 40+ years later, because it looks legit. What some may not always keep in mind is that the footage is often presented on the internet and in television programs in a blown up, enlarged format. The subject in the original film is actually small and distant in the frame (check Youtube for the original footage, not enlarged or analyzed clips). Once it is significantly enlarged (as is frequently done), the resolution is compromised. With poor resolution, all kinds of things can be seen (pro or con, whether they actually exist or not). Some of these have included: a bigfoot baby being carried, a bulging herniated muscle, a belt, a glass eye, a zipper, hood, etc. etc. That's why this clip will continue to be discussed and debated for years to come. There are only two things that would end the discussion of this film 1) Bob Gimlin admits that the filming was staged, if it was in fact staged 2) A bigfoot that looks like the subject in the film is captured or killed. They need to devote a section on this site for readers' ideas on how to capture (or kill) a sasquatch. That's the only thing that will convince those who do not already believe.
ReplyDeleteI dont think anyone is tryin to stop discussin it. Sure looks like this is significant proof. I guess that means all of those plaster casts of "patty" are that fake track Patterson was making in that footage. I can hardly believe it though. and what about Gimlin?? He had to be shooting that film of Patterson.
ReplyDeleteThis is not good.... wow.
I'm blown away. I never thought I would see "proof" but ....
I need to think on this one.
Oh wow. I've never seen this before. Why does everything have to end up like this? :(
ReplyDeleteI thought the pgf would never get proven fake
What are you talking about? These arguements are lame and it is extremely weak to just say, "the PGF is a hoax, this is not speculation" Really? Reproduce it. Oh wait, several well funded attempts have been made and they all look completely ridiculous. I can come out and say, "the PGF is real, this is not speculation, don't hate." Like I've said a hundred times before, look at the film frame by frame. A herniated muscle bulges out of Patty's thigh (about golf ball size), then disappears again. It is a very clear shot of it. A suit can not and would not do that. And Bob Heironimus says that was his car keys. GTFO with that sorry-a55 explanation. Watch for the bulge in Patty's thigh, then shut up.
ReplyDeleteWhat several well funded attempts have tried to reproduce the footage? I'm aware of one (that did not look like the original).
ReplyDeleteRegarding several well funded attempts - and regardless of that fact, how are we supposed to know how talented the make-up artists were? What are their credentials to say they could recreate Patty well? And i hate to say it but Roger Pattison sounds like a modern day Tom Biscardi (though Tom obviously has more funds and means these days to get more out there)...now what would we say if Tom came up with fantastic footage?
ReplyDeleteYou want proof its real? In 1968 20th Century Fox released the first Planet of the Apes. 20th Century Fox wasnt exactly a 2nd rate studio at the time and Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell weren't exactly B film actors. In other words this was a BIG BUDGET film. And NOT IN ONE SCENE did they produce a costume that even comes CLOSE to what we saw in the PGfilm, not even close! In 2001 Fox REMADE the film and didnt have a costume that was as good as the 1967 PG film. The PG film is as good as it gets.
ReplyDeleteAverage Joe, Good point.
ReplyDeleteI forgot that Planet of the Apes came out in 1968.
A
Here's another good point to ponder . . . by more than 1 method we have the figure in the film being, give or take an inch, 7'3" tall. Here's another, there's thumb flexion visible on the most enhanced version. That technolgy didn't exist, for humans anyway, until a decade later. Then let's use our eyes and notice the rather amazing hair/fur. It clearly - and I mean clearly, varys in length, color, and density. In 1968 you'd have to have glued every, single hair onto a 7' tall person to attain that feat because I can clearly see muscles, muscles moving under the hair. It simply couldn't be a man in a suit. So, if its not a human in a suit . . .
DeleteLook, things don't come into existence because humans discover them, they EXIST and humans discover them. Its like the old jilt that points to the pomposity of man . . . "What was the highest mountain in the world before Mount Everest was discovered?"
The answer is Mount Everest!
For me, I have to entertain the thought that a new & higher order ape may very well exist and may soon join the ranks of known primate species.
People modern forensics proved the Patterson film was done in three takes and spliced together to make one film. In 1967 they did not have that kind of forensics and these hucksters probably never thought anyone would figure out how they filmed it. It's a guy in a monkey suit and you can congratulate Patterson and Gimlin for pulling off a great hoax and still fooling fools 50 years later.
ReplyDeleteThe behaviour of the bigfoot is odd to say the least, to just stroll away with a single look back is strange. Patterson was dying of cancer, he needed money fast. Big foot researchers need to steer well clear of this film. Shades of piltdown man. Perhpas its real perhaps not, i suspect fake. The existance or not of big foot is not dependant on this film. A fake patterson film does not equal fake bigfoot. The footage is simply not clear enough for a definite fake or genuine conclusion. Believers will continue to believe and disbelievers will continue to disbelieve with most in the middle simply unable to say yes or no.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article. Here’s what has always gotten to me about the footage: regardless of the technical aspects of the ‘creature’, (which most seem to focus on..) it’s actual behavior is very unlike any wild animal or primate.. most every recalled encounter speaks of a creature very quickly evading, running or disappearing upon someone seeing it. The subject in the PGF is so nonchalant, unbothered, walking, seemingly unbothered by the men, panicking horses etc.. it just doesnt behave like any wild animal AT ALL. Try watching the footage again and apply that lens to it.. compare that to any footage of wild apes, deer, etc.. also seeing Heronimous replicate the “walk” in various interviews is pretty uncanny.. i def believe in Sasquatch. In every indigenous culture on the planet there are these beings as part of their folklore.. that just seems to me to be too much to be a coincidence..
ReplyDelete