the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

That is all in my basic point
THE people who say it is a Hoax. Do not take in account that even the people they rely on have just as much credibility issues as the people who say it wasn't.
To say you see the folds in the suit is crazy, because in one spot the Skeptic is saying you can't tell that by the Film then in the next they are magically saying they see Zipper lines or the bunch up the diaper.
The film is just that a film neither side will ever admit to the other.
It will be a always be an unknown even if we find a live bigfoot if it doesn't look like Patty it will still be well It doesn't look like patty.

Because skeptics think bigfoot should all look similar.
they don't see how diverse humans are and see that bigfoots can be like us and not all look the same.

g

I think the answer to the OP therefore has to be no, it isn't legit film of bigfoot. Way too many questions. In the article I read Bob H explains the lump in the thigh as being his wallet and keys in his pocket as he was fully dressed under the suit. Also he was wearing Football Shoulder pads and with pillows zipped in to make the diaper butt.

The article has still pictures from the re-creation and whilst it is waaay better than that BBC nonsense it doesn't look like the original film. Maybe Bob H shrunk over the years?? It looks like a stumpy version of patty so don't know how they square that one with the height of Patty being put at 6'10" to 7'5" (correct me if wrong).

That's another thing - THis is a bit of a punt but hear me out. I am sure sightings have been reporting BF getting taller and taller over the years?? Does this reflect modern fixations with size and the need to exceed? When I was a kid it was all 'ooh she was 7 to 8 feet tall'. More recently I have seen sighting reports stating 9 to 10 feet tall. Surely there is no evolutoinary advantage to getting taller. What next? 12 feet maybe..? It would be interesting to get a graph of the sighting reports height estimates. I am as interested in what BF can tell us about ourselves as what we can tell about it.

Anyone read Long's book? Seen the documentary Making of Bigfoot?

Hey Virgil_Caine,

Okay on our side (The believers). These questions have been answered over and over again. As for Bob-H.. did you actually watch this recreation? I saw one on Youtube and it was pathetic. Not only did he walk nothing like Patty, but the suit was not even close. And what breasts???? lol He looked like an Ewok.

Here is the problem. You have all these film-know-it alls that do not know jack-crap about the 1960's. A suit like that was impossible to make back then just as it is today. It goes beyond just being a suit. To work, it would have to be mechanical as well. The proportions do not allow simply a man in a suit. The knees bend farther down and the shin are shorter in proportion compared to the thigh. It's the same for the arm and forearm (But prosthetic extensions could be done for the arm effect.) And then you have the muscles flexing as it walks. Only Stretch-fur could pull that effect off and it does not do a good job of it either. Stretch-Fur did not exist in 1967.

Yes Roger Patterson was broke when he filmed Patty and then come all the reports of him being a shady Con-artist. At the time they could not disprove the footage, so the era skeptics were attacking his character and not backing up their claims. "He made a sketch of the exact creature before it was filmed!"... He made that sketch based off an eye-witness. And in the sketch the creature is standing straight up with knees locked. (Something Patty never did)

Later in the 70's you had a guy who claimed it was him. And then another and then another in the 80's If Bob H was truly the man in the suit, where was he then?

If it was a suit and Patterson was broke, how did he afford it?

Why when the #1 creature effects guy stated that it was impossible to make a suit like that, did the true creator of said suit, not surface to discredit him?

Not long after Patty, the best of the best made a movie with a $5 million budget (A-lot of money for the 1960's for a movie. That movie was called "Planet of the Apes" and we all know how "Realistic" those things looked.

So Broke Roger Patterson was able to out-do Hollywood?

When I now see all these people surfacing out of the blue screaming "Hoax" all I see is "Scam".. I see a bunch of A-holes who are surfacing after a guy is long dead and cannot defend himself, to capitalize off him.

g

StankApe wrote:Trying to compare Planet of the Apes to the PGF isn't really fair. The facial appliances made for POTA were designed to maximize facial characterization by the actors. (also to make each character distinguishable from each other) they weren't made to fool the audience into thinking "that's real ape people on the screen" Plus they were shot by a pro cinematographer who lit every single shot for a 35mm Panavision camera (or heck 70mm for all I know). That's a lot different than shooting at 100+ feet with a 16mm camera in natural light..

When Hollywood wants to fool you, it can do it very very well (see the Gorilla suits used in Gorillas in the Mist for example) but usually, they don't really sweat the body very much and focus on making the faces expressive. Cuz that's where the actors are able to express their character the best while wearing a suit. (think of how Harry from Harry and the Henderson's, would be completely different if he didn't have that big happy grin on his face)

But Stank,
All the make up artists like Rick Baker swore up and down that the Person who created it was the same person who did planet of the apes and lost in space. He said this why Rick was doing Harry and the Henderson's but when Rick Baker was confronted after the man said HE never was involved Rick Baker said oh I must have been wrong and he even changed his tune on the Film that It may be real.

Do NOT SEE the story around the suit is as full of "tales" as you say the PDF believers say.
Please if you can't see it then you are not a Skeptic.

g

StankApe wrote:here's the deal. it can still be a suit and BH is lying, it can still be a suit and Chambers is lying that he didn't make it. It can still be a suit and EVERY story told by people claiming to be involved with it are lying. My mind wasn't changed because of the stories, my mind was changed by the film itself. all the BS stories in regards to Patterson, Gimlin,BH....etc had nothing to do with my changing my mind about it. I frankly don't care who is telling the truth as it doesn't affect my opinion on the film itself.

Yea and it can be a real Bigfoot.
And your answer PROVES your no Skeptic! Because you don't care!!!

It is unlikely to be a real creature when it exhibits features not present on any other animal known to man.

The whole body is a blocky static joke. The buttocks resemble nothing known to science, they do not flow with the body movements, it just sits there.

Proponants watch them film and try to visualise that its a guy in a padded suit. It is very easy to do.

As a skeptic I have tried to do the opposite, to visualise that it is a real creature, but it doesnt work, all I see is a man in a bad costume.

g

BurdenOfProof wrote:It is unlikely to be a real creature when it exhibits features not present on any other animal known to man.

The whole body is a blocky static joke. The buttocks resemble nothing known to science, they do not flow with the body movements, it just sits there.

Proponants watch them film and try to visualise that its a guy in a padded suit. It is very easy to do.

As a skeptic I have tried to do the opposite, to visualise that it is a real creature, but it doesnt work, all I see is a man in a bad costume.

If your a skeptic in any way shape or form
you would be skeptical about the people who believe and say it is a hoax or not real. you would take all sides in account.
A skeptic questions all sides and facts not just ones they want too.

g

This is one of the most compelling pieces for me. I remember watching it for the first time in the early 70’s as a kid; it is truly what got me interested in Bigfoot. Since then I have watched it and all of the refined copies and enhancements that I could numerous times over the years. I still will not say that the film by itself is a fake or hoax, because I do not see anything that can be pointed out specifically for me to make that conclusion.
But the background information surrounding it and its makers is hard to ignore. My personnel logical conclusion is that it is a fake.

Could it be a man in a suit? Yep.

Do we have evidence of a hairy bipedal ape-like animal in north america? Nope.

That is the logic. Thats not my opinion, that is facts.

BurdenOfProof wrote:Could it be a man in a suit? Yep.

Do we have evidence of a hairy bipedal ape-like animal in north america? Nope.

That is the logic. Thats not my opinion, that is facts.

FACT: You are a troll who keeps saying the same crap over and over again. To say there is no evidence is you opinion. And you don't even have the common courtesy to explain your opinion, "Trolling" is a violation of the rules to this thread.

BurdenOfProof wrote:They are facts and being a skeptic is not trolling.

I am not saying bigfoot does not exist. I am saying there is no evidence for it currently. How do we know this? It is not accepted by science. That is a fact.

Facts:
Evidence
1.) We have Evidence of a Creature that walks the Deep woods ...
We have many foot prints with have not been determind to be faked.
2.) We have Eye wittness accounts of people seeing such a Creature that made these prints.
3.) We have now a Shooting of at least 2 of these Creatures
4.) DNA evidence has been sent to 4 labs to help Identify these Creatures.
5.) Photo Evidence
6.) Sound recordings of said creature

You are dismissing that we actually have Evidence that can not be determind to be a hoax.

You are not a Skeptic you don't provide any discussion you just say NO evidence with out actually doing the research.

I love the few seconds from the Harley Hoffman footage. Everyone says it's a "Proven" hoax. But I've never seen any proof of that. If anyone knows of any, please let me know. The figure in the footage is remarkably well muscled.

Phillip Morris claims to have made the suit and a thousand more just like it. If that's true, why is not able to produce a single suit now? If you're relying on Morris and Heronimus as the answer to the mystery, you're already dead in the water.

SHOW US THE SUIT!!!
[/quote]

Nuff said.

I've actually read this article before, even though it's Lindsay.

d3w177 wrote:SHOW US THE SUIT!!!

Nuff said.[/quote]

Absoluetly!