Watch 30 Odd Minutes interview with Jeff Hilling about the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Footage
Jeff Hilling is a Bigfoot historian and researcher. He has studied over 2 dozen books and countless articles on the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film and Bigfoot. He has developed a website devoted exclusively to the subject of the Patterson film debate. In the midst of his studies, he has uncovered some interesting facts regarding the film. Jeff is about 80% convinced that the Patterson film footage is genuine.
Hilling is also author of the new book, The Great Bigfoot Film Mystery.
Watch 30 Odd Minutes interview with Jeff Hilling below:
In Mission #79 we discuss one of the most scrutinized pieces of film ever: The 1967 Patterson Gimlin film that shows a purported Bigfoot walking through the woods of Northern California. We look at the famous footage, see other evidence, and speak with a man who has researched the video and the phenomenon surrounding this incident that has gone on to become part of popular culture. He says there’s more than meets the eye here. Jeff Hilling is the author of the new book, The Great Bigfoot Film Mystery. Was a real Bigfoot captured on tape in 1967? Did the Oddball Crew capture one in 2010? Tune in to find out!
Well, we didn't find out much there we didn't already know, did we. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI do not have time to spend 30 minutes, but I have been to his website recently, and studied quite a bit about this film from many sources. I'm 99+ % sure it is authentic, as is almost all the top people in this field.
ReplyDeleteChuck in Ohio
Why are you 1% unsure?
DeleteIf you study Roger Patterson's background, you may come to the ad hominem conclusion that the famous footage was hoaxed.
ReplyDeleteYup. Patterson wrote a self-published book titled Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist. This book was written BEFORE the famous footage was taken. The book includes bigfoot drawings made by Patterson, including a female sasquatch with breasts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, before Patterson shot the October 1967 footage, he tried to get investors to back a self-made movie about a group of cowboys who track a bigfoot with the help of an Indian guide. Supposedly, the Indian guide was played by Bob Gimlin wearing a wig. There is a picture out there of the cast of this self made movie. The picture shows Bob Gimlin in his Indian wig, Roger Patterson, and others, including Bob Heironomous on the far right:
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/24c0dcb5.jpg
There are people who claim to have known Patterson who say that Patterson was a disreputable con man. Patterson's character does nothing to help support the validity of the famous 1967 footage.
Given his attempts at making money with bigfoot before the 1967 footage, it seems likely that this was yet another money making attempt. In other words, it was a hoax to make money. Patterson did make money from his famous footage.
Patterson also denied, to his deathbed, of hoaxing the movie. Not only that, he had spent almost all of the little money he made from the film in an attempt to capture a live bigfoot. A con man wouldn't ruin all his spoils on something he faked, would he?
DeleteAbout the drawings of Bigfoot. So what. He was interested in the topic before the sighting, so he made drawings of Bigfoots. OMG, he draws one with breast! The man must be a hoaxer if he assumed that females of the species would exist...
If the film is so easily disproven, why haven't we seen the costume? Why hasn't anyone come forward with evidence to say they were the Bigfoot? (Bob had no evidence. The only thing he could claim was that Robert had his horse at the time)Why hasn't, even today, a replica of the costume been produced with enough detail as the one in the film?
Anon above, but the video itself still hasn't been proven to be a hoax. If it was a hoax pure and simple, how come it hasn't been replicated?
ReplyDeleteJust because the man might if had a disputed past doesn't necessarily mean the footage is a hoax.
I agree, but it sure makes the likelihood that it was a hoax a lot greater.
DeleteIf you listen to Hollywood costume and prop designers they will tell you if that suit is faked Patterson should have been designing stuff for major Hollywood companies as that suit was way ahead of its time.
DeleteShit, keep forgetting about the new reply button (nice touch by the way) . My last comment was in reply to the first anon.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this famous footage would be more believable and have more credibility if it wasn't shot by someone of questionable character who tried to make money with bigfoot before this footage.
ReplyDeleteThere are people who try to debunk the footage as a man in a costume:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
I have to admit that film has vexed me forever. I am glad someone is making a study of focusing on just that evidence. Still, I have to laugh when someone is a Bigfoot historian since the only history we really have is personal reports, so it's more like a Bigfoot witness historian.... Okay, I'm going to be goofy this morning. It's Saturday and I'm working. Argh!
ReplyDelete50 year old film still being scrutinized by so many so often. Silly really. Easier than doing what P-G did. With all the equipment and technology of the 211st century we can't repeat it, so "Bigfoot Researchers" work it over and over on thier PC's. Productive.
ReplyDeleteHollywood make-up and costume expert and multiple Academy Award winner Stan Winston said this after watching the Patterson film, "It's a guy in a bad fur suit, sorry." He went on to say that the suit in the film could have been made for "under a thousand, in that day."
ReplyDeleteWho said this? Bc everything ivevread said total opposite
DeleteStan Winston was a highly respected and absolutely amazing Hollywood make-up, costume, and special effects wizard. Look him up online to read about his work in many famous films. If Winston made such a statement regarding the Patterson film, it is not fair to his reputation and credentials to immediately dismiss what he said about the Patterson footage.
DeleteLike I posted above on Bigfoot the defenitive guide or whatever its named on Animal Planet they said the exact opposite of it being a cheap fur suit.
DeleteSomeone above wrote: he (Patterson) had spent almost all of the little money he made from the film in an attempt to capture a live bigfoot. A con man wouldn't ruin all his spoils on something he faked, would he?
ReplyDeleteIs there any evidence that he spent all of the money that he made on the film trying to capture a live bigfoot? Is there any proof that Patterson, "ruined his spoils on something he faked?" This is the type of things that con men will say to make their cons seem more believable.
I am in a time warp, it's 1967, Ed Sullivan has a really good show planned tonight. The beatles AND Roger Patterson.
ReplyDeleteHere's the reason I think that it is an authentic creature walking in the PG film. If this was a hoax dont you think the monkey suit would have surfaced at some point to put away all the rumors of it being a real creature? Why hasnt the suit been recreated since?
ReplyDeleteAs someone posted above, there are people who have attempted to recreate the suit:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
yes ATTEMPTED is the key word but nothing has come close. You see what the original planet of the apes costumes look like and youre going to tell me these broke dudes came up with all this cash to make a suit that was decades ahead of its time?
DeleteI don't know about that? There's the same link by two people who posted above. The costume shown in the link sure comes close, complete with butt crack crease.
DeleteJust stepped in and caught this. It has often been said that Roger Patterson was too broke and too simple (too dim witted) to be able to make a bigfoot costume as convincing as the one in the famous footage. Really? How does anyone know this? Roger Patterson was a cowboy who worked in rodeos. The fact is that Roger Patterson was a skilled leather worker with a complete set of leather working tools. Not only did Patterson have the ability to skillfully modify a gorilla suit, he had the tools to do it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I just don't get it... If P.Morris and his wife created this first 'costume' for Patterson as they claim to have, why haven't they made another one to show it can be done? If you do a little research, you will see that they have a thriving costume business online. It seems to me that funding for such an endeavor would not be a problem for them, especially since they would make it In-house themselves. If I were in their shoes, I would build another and put this to rest once and for all. Even if Patterson did modify it a bit as claimed after he received it, I would think a professional like Morris could easily recreate the final product, especially since almost all was his original work. Hell, someone would likely buy it from him for a nice penny as well.
ReplyDeleteSomeone could make an absolute perfect costume that is an exact copy of the Patterson bigfoot, one that looks exactly like the figure in the film, and some people will still claim that the footage shows a real creature. People see what they want to see.
DeleteYeah but why havnt they?
DeleteThe Munns report will likely be the definitive study. Munns' qualifications and expertise in all aspects of sfx and movie-costume making are beyond dispute. He's done the research. I'd take his word over anyone's, including those who just point and say "guy in a suit."
ReplyDeletehttp://themunnsreport.com/
Thanks for that link. I have been watching the video analysis. Very detailed and thorough. Almost overkill, but really gives you the complete picture of what happened. Thanks again. Anon.
DeleteTo Anon at 10:05. You are right on. He is also highly skilled in video analysis, and goes in depth showing how even the 4 way stretch spandex costumes of today still do not match the natural form and movement of the Patterson/Gimlin creature. He also measured the creature at I think about 7' 6".
DeleteChuck in Ohio
Bill Munns had to retract that estimate of the height; he was assuming that Patterson used a 15 mm lens, but that wasn't the case. The camera Patterson rented had a 25mm lens. If the foot is really 14 1/2 inches long, like the footprints, then the height is about 5 ft 7 or so. Of course, that's "bent over" a little. The scientists who analyzed the film back in the day all said it was no more than 6-4.
DeleteOur interview with Jeff Hilling on BTE Radio: http://beyondtheedgeradio.podomatic.com/entry/2011-12-06T18_48_26-08_00
ReplyDeleteInterview starts 20 minutes into the program...90 minutes and very interesting.
"What should we believe?" - is the wrong question. The correct one is...
ReplyDeleteGiven the state of animation, what level of evidence is now required to justify belief? I suggest the answer to that is...DNA.
Nope. DNA will prove nothing. Skeptics will find a way to refute it. At best, bigfoot DNA will be labeled as inconclusive. There have already been studies done in which the DNA was classified as "unknown primate." How far have these studies gone to prove the existence of bigfoot?
DeleteThe ONLY thing that will prove the existence of bigfoot, to justify belief, is a bigfoot specimen, either dead or alive. Nothing else will prove bigfoot's existence. NOTHING!!!
Someone recently said in the full film you can see another creature walking in the opposite direction in the beginning. That true?
ReplyDeleteI feel this is by far and away the best film there is on Squatch. A costume of that caliber was pretty Damn hard to fake back then
As mentioned above the Munns report is a very detailed,objective and technically sound report made by a very qualified expert in this area. In his report he has concluded that there was no way that this was a man in a costume as the technology/materials required to design a suit like this was not yet developed. Size measurement have determined the creature in the film is between 7'2" and 7'6" if I am correct. The kicker is that from an anatomical perspective he lined up a human against the creature in the film and the joints do not line up. Meaning the ratio of digits ( thigh to lower leg,upper arm to lower arm etc. ) are outside the realm of human anatomy making it impossible for it to be a man in a suit.
ReplyDeleteSkeptics please read his report.
There have also been several other scientific studies performed on the film and they concluded that they could not prove it to be a hoax.
I think if it is a costume, it had to be made from a real animal's hyde. The fur just looks too real. You can spot synthetic fur from a mile away. That' a big reason why the attempts to recreate the Patty suit fail. Also the appearance of muscles is another thing I have not seen recreated. Maybe the suit was simply padded, and with the way the sun was hitting it, it created the illusion of muscles, but its very convincing and anatomically correct. The back, the neck, the glutes all look the way they should, there's just nothing that really looks fake about it.
ReplyDeleteWrong about DNA not proving anything, it's good enough to stand up in court and the coming results will rock the world. DNA IS proof of a species, it's only mindless lunatics left still using the no body excuse. If the DNA's not ours or any other known animal, there's only one other primate it could be. And as far as the PGF, Winston/Hollywood knew nothing of primate anatomy and locomotion, his mind like most people's clouded by the fact Patty moves so humanlike. That confused them since it was always thought to be an ape, so therefore it must be a guy in a suit yet there's never been suits like this before or since. Hilling sounds like any other recent investigator, they've read all the old books on it, but those pages are about to be obsolete along with the ape theory. Like we now look at the innocence of science books from centuries ago with a sly smile.
ReplyDeleteDNA evidence will not prove the existence of bigfoot to science/skeptics. It will only convince those who already believe that bigfoot exists. There have already been DNA studies leading to "unknown primate" findings. These studies have done nothing to get science/skeptics to accept the existence of bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that will rock the world is a bigfoot specimen provided to science.
No, DNA is rock solid proof of a new species. No one should care whether the lunatic fringe that's left will still deny, they don't matter anymore now science has proven it. Or will soon, rather. DNA is solid gold. I agree it'd be nice to see more of this rare spieces, and we will from time to time surely, but the proof of existence will already be there. Can't wait to start laughing even more at the morons, they'll surely keep trolling the slain fields of bitterness but the gun is firmly aimed at them now.
ReplyDeleteReally? Then why have previous bigfoot related DNA studies with "unknown primate" results done nothing to prove bigfoot's existence?
Deleteok.....so why has no recreation video been made with a real "squatch". Who gives a hang about the truth behind the Patterson vid or a re creation of it. Show some new evidence with a modern camera. There should be plenty of chances....BFRO finds one in the woods every show. Film it and end the debate.
ReplyDeleteBecause there is no "squatch." Bigfoot will only exist as long as money can be made.
DeletePatterson was an opportunist who wanted to cash in on the idea of filming a real Bigfoot. The odds of him actually doing it are astronomical!! He had means and motive. When Bob Gimlin reused to make personal appearances with him he hired someone to pose as Gimlin. His book published just one year before his film showed his concept of what Bigfoot looked like which just by coincidence looks like the one in the film. Again, the odds are so great it's ridiculous! One only has to look at Patterson the man to realize the credibility of this film is just too good to be true.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a suit that "good" didn't exist when the film was made is just not true. Having worked in the film industry for over thirty years I can tell you that Hollywood Gorilla suits go as far back as the thirties. Frankly it doesn't look that real (depending on who you ask). Patterson modified an existing suit. He had saddle and leather making skills plus he was a talented artist. He knew exactly how it should look because one year before he drew pictures of his female Bigfoot in the book he published. All the "experts" talk about muscles moving and so forth. That's because Bob Heironimus, the man who wore the costume, put it on over his clothes resulting in a tight fit. The costume moved over his clothes resulting in the illusion of "muscles" moving. It's how modern suits are done a hair layer then a second layer of sculpted "muscle". The suit was taken back by Patterson once Heironimus wore it but not before it was witnessed by members of Heironimus' family. Patterson's film is a hoax of the first order.
ReplyDelete