Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Could This Costume Prove The Patterson Gimlin Film Was A Fake?


Most proponents of the Patterson Gimlin film argue that it must be real because no costume has ever come close to reproducing the look and details of the creature in the film. But this costume made by Leroy Blevins Sr. is amazingly close. Blevins made the suit in 2007, and says most bigfoot researchers know about it, and choose not to acknowledge it.


74 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Like a meadow! Oh, and;

      https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DiRWOLTsDyY/TY5X5k2O7fI/AAAAAAAADok/tiE7U9_Md_4/s1600/Blevins+BF+Suit.jpg

      ... I rest my case.

      Delete
    2. Ohhhhhh.......Myyyyyyy.........Joergggggg!!!!!!!

      Joe, lets meet in the meadow this winter and makes snow angels. WE then can strip down and make them melt under our passionate body heat. It will be amazing!

      Mohawk Spoke

      Delete
    3. You on the other hand, not so amazing.

      Delete
    4. Well that was $243 and 3 days he will never get back!! Ha ha ha... epic fail.

      P.S. keep up the good work Iktomi ,school is never out with the cement heads!

      Delete
  2. Black Ops keeping the bigfoots off the folks radar, so folks thinking bigfoots aren't real

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sorry but that suit is an epic fail. And we don't see him walk like patty in that rug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like a reasonably close copy to me. Ultimately, it would be best to test such a costume under the same lighting conditions and shoot with the same type of film.

      Delete
    2. That's the thing... The very best Hollywood gorilla costumes were shot in very clever lighting conditions. The subject in the PGF is shot in direct sunlight; yet we can't see any clear alleged anomalies.

      Delete
    3. That is a matter of opinion.

      Delete
    4. It's just kinda goofy that the video is all stills of him posing like patty. I could put on a black track suit and achieve the same thing. Let's see the rug walk. Movement and mechanics is the entire mystery behind the PG film.

      Delete
    5. 12:20... It is a matter of opinion that the costume up top is a "reasonably close copy", it is in fact objective to look at comparative data.

      Delete
    6. Of course that is an opinion- however both sides claim to put out supposed claims that prove it is a fake or genuine. None that I have seen have swayed me to either side.

      Delete
    7. Ohhhhhh..........Myyyyyyy........Joergggggg!!!!!!!

      Joe, lets dress up in monkey suits and visit the zoo. We can jump in the gorilla pit and hope they think we are females in heat. It will be amazing!!

      John W. Jones Spoke

      Delete
    8. It's amazing how lonely you are.

      Delete
    9. 1:01... Your opinion is respected of course.

      Delete
  4. FFS! really? just 1 question though...why put tits on a hoax? FFS!
    FFS! when someone has that answer, perhaps the mystery will be over lol FFS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the same guy who puts them in his drawings.

      Delete
    2. FFS! Isn't it obvious you fool. I cant stand you morons! FFS!

      Delete
    3. It is not unreasonable to note that someone who draws something in a unique way would construct a model in that same fashion. I am not saying that is what happened, but doubting it because it doesn't fit your model IS foolish.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. poop next to a tree to mark where U have been for your SAFETY.....















      Delete
  6. SO 40 years later he can make a welcome rug that sorta looks like Patty if you point the light in the opposite direction and the face doesnt point toward the light,Great. Just Great!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was not as bulky and muscular as Patty. Hair was uniform in length on this costume. Patty has longer hair on different places and even thinner hair in places that make anatomical sense.

      This attempt was better than most hoax- um squatches but Patty still reigns as queen in my book.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. BOBO the Bigfoot GURU on all things Bigfoot

      Delete
  9. What's funny is that it is a copy of Patty not a copy of a costume--and even with the costume--the guy is not as bulky and his head still too small.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many times have I written this fact. Bob H. said it was he who wore the "Patty suit" and Roger rode HIS horse. Bob H. was a know liar, was jealous of Roger's fame etc.
      "If" it was HIS horse, then why did HIS horse react so scared? A Horse knows his owner, and would of stay calm. the way the Horses reacted shows they were seeing or smelling something they never saw before. I train horses for a living, and know their habits well.
      Why? with all the Thousands of Hoaxed/Phony Big foot videos out there, why? is the P/G film the ONLY one debated for over 5 decades?
      Me and my team have seen numerous Bigfoots over the past 20 years. All four of us concur, that Patty was in fact a real Bigfoot.
      and. . . they still haven't Re-produced that suit in all these years! Several of the best Special effects artists said; "Even with all the new material,and Technology, we CANNOT Re-produce THAT suit" End of story, CASE CLOSED!

      John W. Jones Spoke!

      Delete
    2. coulda be mooslims look fer tham virgins

      Delete
    3. John's horse argument is such an amazing point.

      Delete
    4. I certainly would not be so bold as to state CASE CLOSED. There are indeed other good make-up artists such as Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker and Howard Berger among others who believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise. You state that Bob H. was a known liar and that may be but Roger P. was as well and was even called a lot worse. I don't know much about horses but I wonder how they react with a stranger on it's back plus who knows what Roger did to it to cause it to react. We simply don't know for sure. I can say this - Bob H. may or may not be telling the truth about the suit but he sure has the walk down. I've seen him on TV recreating the walk and he sure has the same style as the figure in the film. Perhaps if they had put him in the suit, and filmed it with the same type of camera at the same (alleged) time of day that the original was shot with the same distance it might have been more revealing. The PG film is hotly debated because everyone can read into the image what they want to see and there is enough doubt and issues for both sides to use for an argument. No my friend - the debate about the film and suit is far from over. The story continues.

      Numerous (that's an ambiguous number) over the past 20 years? May I ask what you have to show for it?

      Delete
    5. Ive been sucking D and riding horses (biblically) for many of years. And i believe bigfoot tie there dead to the top of trees and perform sky burials.

      John W. Jones Spoke

      Case Closed!

      Delete
    6. Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker and Howard Berger among other Hollywood SFX artists stating that they can "do better than what we see in the footage", right? Like... They're not going to want to promote their own expertise in the process, right? It's a dud argument when not one of them can demonstrate at least one for cloth technique, for what we see in that footage. For 100 years of SFX, not one of these experts, not one method in the industry known to any expert can account for what we see, not from the time and not now. If someone largely sceptical of the topic already, with careers to look after is put on the spot about that footage prior to it being stabilised; that's what you're gonna get. Still no monkey suit.

      Your "version" of Roger Patterson's integrity is provided by someone like Greg Long; who's been caught putting words in the mouths of people he interviewed for his book. You see... There's money in hoaxing a hoax, especially when your target audience are largely sceptical of the subject already. Author David Murphy has spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson (as yet unreleased). In this time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. This is in direct contrast to Greg ‘Liar’ Long who’s book was an attempt at making money from hoaxing a hoax;
      http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

      Delete
    7. "Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low
      budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger. Hieronimous is, in fact, one of Bob Gimlin's neighbours, but Gimlin had little social contact with him over the years. Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbours. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967. If Hieronimous had felt left out of Patterson's project by 1967, it would have added insult to injury to learn that his own horse was used by Gimlin on the horse trip that made them both famous. Yakima folks say Bob Hieronimous, by contrast, was always an under-achiever, since he was young. His bare-minimum
      work ethic won him no admirers in the community. He didn't have many friends, compared to Gimlin. Gimlin had a rather large circle of friends in the Yakima Valley. Compared to the Hieronimous property, the Gimlins seem to have done nicely for themselves. The Gimlins' home has always been well maintained, and nicely painted, and the landscaping nicely manicured. The Gimlins always had nicer, newer vehicles in their driveway too. The Hieronimous family could never keep up with those Joneses. It was a formula for envy in a small western town. Hieronimous had been telling people in Yakima bars for years that he would someday find a way to make money off the Patterson footage, like his famous neighbour did. So you see... Even if Bob H was telling the truth, he was either participating in a documentary (not the PGF) or merely had his horse in the film."
      http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp

      Delete
    8. Lastly;
      "If you look closely, Bob's profile does not match the creature at all. His stride and arms are way too short for him to be the person in the suit. Also, when he's walking, you can see that his knees (and feet) are nearly not as highly raised as the Patterson creature."
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/video-of-bob-heironimus-walking-with.html?m=0

      Delete
    9. Your having quite the meltdown over this thread Joerg. I would suggest you settle down if you know whats good for you.

      Delete
    10. Meltdown? That's what you call providing substance to your stance kid, you might want I try it sometime, and nobody's had a bigger meltdown than you... That's pretty evident to anyone who spends more than ten minutes around here. How long has it been going on for now? Two years? Maybe longer?? I can't tell whether you've been banned more times than you've had meltdowns, I think it's meltdowns that edge it maybe???

      Delete
    11. Silence you blabbling baffoon ^

      Try Googling tapetum lucidium in Homo
      Sapien Sapien ,Then I want you to learn the difference between. Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA !
      But then again You're. low IQ will most likely make the FACTS incomprehensible to a dullard such as yourself!

      The Good Dr B S

      Delete
    12. Not all Sasquatch are reported to have eye glow. Sykes has tested all areas of Zana's lineage.

      Old news.

      Delete
  10. Blevins.. It's acknowledged by most people who study bigfoot as another example of an 'attempt' to replicate the subject in the PGF. It also provides yet additional proof that the subject is not a suit.

    1%

    ReplyDelete
  11. why does it matter that someone made a suit in 2007.....that's 40 + years later. how does that in anyway prove that someone in 1960 whatever could make a similar suit. Many of the fabrics used today didn't exist 40-50 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If some guy with zero costume making experience can make a no budget suit that looks as much like "Patty" as this one does, then there is no reason not to believe that Patterson could have and did make the "Patty" suit.

    Of course, bigfoot believers are going to protest because they don't want to believe it. The whole multi-million dollar bigfoot industry rides on the Patterson-Gimlin Film.

    As a side note, the implication is that Gimlin was either conned himself or is lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely correct, but no evidence, even Gimlin admitting it, will make the idiot footers believe. The diaper butt displayed in the P/G film is truly epic. Bob H wore that diaper to perfection

      Delete
    2. It took Blevins almost 10 years to make that costume with materials not available in 1967... That in fact looks nothing like the subject in the PGF;
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      It would have been a very stupid thing to trick Bob G considering he had a loaded weapon pointed at the subject, whilst Bob G was offered $1M by a bunch of documentary film makers to "come clean" and didn't even flinch.

      The "diaper butt" is akin to human anatomy, page 15 here;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... And please check this out "Girl Raised As Bushman Running And Playing With Dangerous Animals";
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/watch-girl-raised-as-bushman-running.html?m=1

      Delete
    3. Joerg is insanely upset that Blevins crushed the patty suit. Bob H already admitted to wearing the diaper. I believe it was pampers. Cry us a river Joerg

      Delete
    4. Oh; did I mention that even the best photos of Blevins had to have the pictures reduced by 5% to come a little close to what is seen in the PGF.

      "There are various ways to demonstrate that Hieronimus' confession is fake:
      1) Hieronimus has given three contradictory versions of his confession to various journalists -- contradictory regarding the "costume" description. Specifically, he has changed his description of the costume, dramatically, three times. The contradictions are so blatant that the only reasonable explanation is that the whole story is fake.
      2) Hieronimous is still not able to demonstrate a matching costume, even with expert assistance. As the Hieronimus crew continues to introduce new costumes, to more closely approximate the Patterson creature, the more obvious it is that Hieronimus didn't have anything do with it the first time either.
      3) Hieronimous does not know anything about the route to get to the film site, as if he was never there.
      4) His explanation for why he never asked for the $1,000 from Gimlin or Patterson ... doesn't make any sense. Many things in his confession make no sense.
      5) When Hieronimous is asked why he's telling this story to the public 40 years later, he says "It's my turn now" ... refering to the other parasite scammers who have made claims about the footage in previous years.
      6) The comparative visuals clearly show that the Patterson creature has a different skeleton than Bob Hieronimous (or any human, for that matter). See the comparative footage on the left."
      http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp

      Delete
    5. Hiermonius is a liar, plain and simple.
      Arm to leg ratios don't lie so if you measure his you'll see there was no way he could have worn a suit that was even close to the PGF. Try wearing a suit and walking the same way the creature does in the film. You'll see how it is impossible for a human to do so
      Schooled !

      Joe

      Delete
    6. ^ your daddy will spank you if he ever found out you were using his laptop to get on porn sites and the bigfoot evidence forum .
      Do you have big shoes to shine for your bigfeet or a monkey suit you can wear while getting schooled ?

      Joe

      Delete
  13. Horrible failure ! What rot !
    A huge joke that's what this is. It doesn't even look close and we don't see him walking in the suit. And it's because he can't recreate the same body movement wearing the suit as the creature in the film.
    Sorry boyos, back to the padded cells for you !

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Qumli is mad b/c his main argument got destroyed. Aint that right MMC

      Delete
    2. ^ Gimply who has never kissed a girl but plenty of arses

      Joe

      Delete
  14. my background is in art and, as a part of that degree, we studied anatomy (skeletal and muscular structure) - this suit has none of the characteristics of real muscle and bone. Epic fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why the video doesn't show him walking. I'm sure it would look ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:18 is Joe/Joerg lying again about his background

      Delete
  15. Not in a million years!! Nice fail Skepturds!!! lol

    ReplyDelete
  16. Trolls will never be convinced the PGF is real so why waste our breathe on "people" who only come on here to cause drama.
    Bigfoot is real, case closed
    Trolls are also real, let's close a case on their pointy heads

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. trolls bein cuzins to tham bigfoots

      Delete
  17. This costume looks good, especially for someone who has never made costumes before. IMO, the costume looks just exactly like that; A costume. This suit looks like a costume you would buy for halloween to mimic the real thing. No different than going to Spencer gifts and buying a werewolf costume or a costume of Frankenstein. The guy did a commendable job but in the end, the PG creature is a living, breathing creature.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Show me "THE" costume then, after, we will argue. Even if the Patty-Patterson movie was a hoax, a bunch of credible testimonies (not all), observations and pictures sustains the possible existence of something, 7 feet tall, living in forest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How does someone making a Bigfoot costume that looks like Patty prove Patty was a fake? It does look like Patty, so what. It doesn't mean a thing. There are some pretty good looking gorilla costumes being made. Find the so call real costume made in 1967, then you can talk about Patty being a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Once again, someone is attempting to show that by reproducing an unexplained phenomenon, within the narrow constructs of their viewpoint, that they have proven a point of truth.
    I'm sure there are many ways to approximate the images in the original film. This suit proves nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This 2007 costume is a total failure. Techniques & materials available at the time of the film were best captured in "Planet of the Apes" which is a sad attempt compared to the film. Most convincing proof of failure? Look Very, Very closely at the film and you will see protruding female breasts. They are quite distinct. They are Nowhere on this attempted reproduction. Did they not even see them? Of course not. Because it is a cheap reproduction. And, why would a costumer at the time even bother to include breasts?? They wouldn't. Because the film is real.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I CALL BULLSHIT. Patty is not a man in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow! Somebody finally makes a suit "similar" to the creature 40 years AFTER the filming with modern day techniques and materials. Are you kidding me? Why is this story given any kind of credence at all?

    ReplyDelete
  24. almost fifty years to make -

    And it still falls short of the original.

    ReplyDelete