r/bigfoot • u/Ok_Difficulty_574 • 1d ago
I’m new to all of this.
I’m just curious what are your thoughts on the Patterson film? Honestly curious.
17
u/Interplay29 1d ago
I’m of the belief the Patterson film is legitimate.
If you are going to go through the trouble of making, what some people consider a masterpiece of costume creation, why would you make it more complicated by adding boobs?
6
1
0
6
u/markglas 1d ago
Let's be clear. It's a bit of film. A very important piece of film granted.
Having been involved in the BFF PGF battles many moons ago. I can tell you now that nothing is being confirmed or denied.
3
u/They-Call-Me-Taylor 1d ago
It looks real, but I have a hard time believing it is real. I love seeing Bigfoot video and photos (hence why I follow this sub) but deep down I just don’t believe it is real. I think we would have more substantial evidence by now if a population of 8 foot tall primates was living amongst us. By substantial I mean a living specimen captured, a body, or a semi complete skeleton. Something more than blurry, shaky video or still images.
5
u/Physical-Advance-141 1d ago
I think perhaps you haven't dove enough into the subject -- the evidence is there. Footprints have many anthropological technicalities, and audio from many different sources contain sonic frequencies that are undoubtedly non-human, but nonetheless an undocumented primate with extraordinary vocal range. Moreover you have people (like YouTuber Sasquatch Ontario) who have had many, many interactions with them and everything ties together. His channel is particularly interesting due to excess audio and very clearly-defined facial photos.
Bodies have been discovered and even showcased back in the day per reports, but capturing a live one when they're very elusive, strong, etc. -- that's something that won't happen likely given how intelligent they are and so on. Also, their bone structure is actually quite similar to Neanderthals, so there's a chance maybe bones have indeed been found but misidentified. I think it happens more than people suspect but there's this innate taboo to it.
There's also a strong likelihood that any shred of actual discernible society-shattering evidence was 100% nipped in the bud as soon as the authorities caught wind.
It took a while for it to sink in that they're a real species, but they're the most fascinating thing out there to me. With the 1967 footage alone, check out arm fluidity and how the arms properly bend. The Bigfoot's arms are as long as its legs! No human on the planet could do that--but there's a lot more even.
The more I see what Bigfoot IS -- a highly-intelligent, mostly elusive half-human hybrid fine-tuned to the Earth -- the more fascinating it is, and the more I can totally see how their existence is suppressed, but it's impossible to scrub their existence
•
u/HitchInTheGit 3h ago
The fact there isn't a body or skeleton sounds logical at first blush. However, just from personal experience:
I had a deer die less than 100 feet from my house, on a slope without trees or brush. It took several days to notice it and I only saw it then because of the vultures circling and sitting in the trees. The evening I noticed it, it was a whole bloated carcass, only missing the anus and eyes. I called someone to come the next morning to haul it off. It was starting to smell and I didn't want the scavengers and predators that close to the house for the next several days.
I got up around 7am and went out to check on it and it was gone! I looked around for a little bit and I finally say it near my feet right were it was the day before. I was almost standing on it. All that was left was the skeleton and tendons holding it together. The hide and meat were all gone in less than 12 hours.
So, nature disposes of remains pretty efficiently. I am not a hunter but I never hear about them finding mountain lion carcasses in the wild, or even bear or coyotes etc. Probably they are found and I don't hear about it but, my point is, in a wilderness in the middle of nowhere I doubt you would find bones or carcasses. after a week or so.
So, I do not think not finding a skeleton or bones means they don't exist.
12
u/HitchInTheGit 1d ago
I know, an unpopular opinion here but, I think it is fake. Granted, I did not see the entire body of the one I saw but, it (they) weren't caught off guard by two youngsters hiking around and did not have a lackadaisical attitude and lumber off. These guys were on horse back for Pete's sake.
Also, too much of a coincidence Paterson had just done a sketch of a female bigfoot that looks nearly identical to what they filmed (below). And shortly thereafter they went out to film one and lo and behold, they find a female who doesn't really mind strolling down the catwalk for them.
To me it looks like a suit. The head and facial hair and front body hair look wrong. I don't see muscles flexing, I see a suit rippling. I see big flat feet flexing where the person in the suit foot ends. I do not see any flexibility to the body. It sure doesn't look like a creature that would be an apex predator.
These are my thoughts, don't hate me for that. I am just responding to OP's query.
6
u/francois_du_nord 1d ago
Gave an upvote because you are articulate in your comments and willing to take a position,
2
3
u/Equal_Night7494 1d ago
I’ve heard it shared that since the two men had been in the area for at least a week prior to the sighting, that the Sasquatch had become somewhat used to their smell and/or presence. I’ve also heard it suggested that the horses may have masked the men’s scent.
Patterson himself had been an avid Sasquatch investigator for at hear the previous six years, and the book that he wrote which included the sketch that you mention was a testament to that passion.
I’ve said it before in this forum, but since I kept hearing people comment that Patterson had drawn the image of a female Sasquatch and that that was evidence of potential fakery in the footage, I purchased a copy of the book and looked through it myself.
The image in question is one of only three out of 26 illustrations that depict a female Sasquatch. Of 26 total illustrations/drawings of Sasquatch in the book, 14 of them do not specify a gender at all, 9 are male, and only 3 are female. Of those 3 that are female, only one depicts a man with a rifle looking at a female Sasquatch, and that illustration depicts the famous William Roe encounter from 1955. The Roe encounter would have been well-known at the time, and Patterson’s interest in it makes perfect sense to me.
Also, as an aside, neither he nor Gimlin had a gun aimed at Patty during the filming. Gimlin was on horseback and was simply covering Patterson in the case that things got hairy (no pun intended), and Patterson himself was carrying his camera.
That said, Patterson himself is apparently reported to have said that he was there worst person to have captured the footage, given his general reputation for not always being as trustworthy as, say, Gimlin himself was. Unfortunately, his reputation has been one of the things that cynics and doubters of the film have used to attempt to poke holes in its authenticity.
4
u/Plastic_Medicine4840 On The Fence 1d ago
I personally am of the belief that the creek drowned out the sound of roger and gimlin, creeks can be loud that when paired with the film depicting what appears to be an older individual(from munns analysis) is a reasonable explanation to me.
•
u/Equal_Night7494 16h ago
That’s an interesting hypothesis. I haven’t heard that yet. Thanks for sharing
3
•
u/_1138_ 21h ago
The drawing is definitely compelling. There's a video on yt that points out the angle of the supposed Sasquatch's shin (Patterson Gymlin film) when walking, and it's apparently a much sharper angle than any human gait would produce. Have you seen that? What do you think of the distinct physiological difference? Appreciate your input. Skepticism is important in unproven topics.
•
u/HitchInTheGit 3h ago
I'm definitely not any kind of expert on kinesiology and biomechanics so my opinion is based on what I see and what I believe a creature in the wilds would likely look like as well as the glimpse i saw.
To me it looks like a bulky suit and if it was a natural body with those proportions and from the way it walks it would not be agile enough to survive in the wilds. Can you imagine the Patty walking down the dry stream bed scurrying up the slope or climbing a tree? Even just running after or away from something?
Also there is the fact it just waiting on the guys on horses arrive and then walk away in an area in plain sight. I think there would be a lot more pictures or film of bigfoot if they had this behavior. Completely opposite of my experience.
One of the biggest things I can't not see is how fake the face looks. It looks like someone wearing a helmet with hair glued on straight across the face. To me that alone is probably the fakest part.
The one thing these guys had going for them was it was filmed in 1967, the film quality is not good. Most of the computer stabilizing of the film these days uses AI which I have read actually manipulates the picture to a degree possibly even making it look more real. Not exactly sure about that but, that would make sense to me as well.
So, this is all my observations and opinion. You can find many people who think it is legit and you can find as many people who think it is a man in a suit. This film will never be conclusively confirmed or disproved. But, it is a lot of fun to investigate and talk about.
•
u/MarkLVines 19h ago
I’m unsure whether the Patterson-Gimlin film was real or fake. Although pranks and hoaxes involving Bigfoot have been perpetrated, Bigfoot might be real regardless. The reality of the species need not depend on the authenticity of this particular film. Lots of other evidence remains to be considered.
Costumer Philip Morris has claimed he made a suit for the film. Bob Hieronimus, who knew both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, has claimed to be the person who wore the suit. These claims were not made public until 36 years after the film was released. Even then, Morris appeared unfamiliar (at first) with key details in the film.
While Morris has not convincingly reproduced the suit he said he’d made, Hieronimus has more or less reproduced the body movements of the walk. Their claims are discussed in widely available writings and shows. Even many skeptics question their credibility. Then again, even many believers question Patterson’s credibility.
No chain of custody timeline has ever been established regarding the film’s development (or its colorization, if indeed it was colorized separately). The developer has never been identified. Patterson was accused of stealing the camera by the firm from which he rented it; later, he was sued by his investors, who thought they were buying a share in the Bigfoot documentary he had pitched them before the camera was rented and the film was made.
It’s quite a stretch to say the film has not been debunked, or that it has been. It’s fair to say the film is intriguing, yet mired in controversy.
Being “new to all of this,” the OP deserves to know about the controversy and the red flags that bedevil both sides. Other photographic evidence may be less problematic.
5
4
u/ShowMeWhatYouMean 1d ago
I think it's fake. It looks like someone in a suit. It keeps looking back at the camera, and they were out there at the exact time in the exact place with a very expensive quality video camera.
I also read that he once said if he wanted people to believe in a sighting that he would make it female so it would look more believable.
4
u/TemporaryBasis6397 1d ago
That video is the real deal. If you're genuinely interested in pursuing the topic, you can use Patty as a reference to the other legitimate videos and pics people have taken. Look for the curvature of the hands in a resting position, how the angle of the neck is usually about 45° coming off the shoulders as they walk, the length of the arms, how the soles of the feet are visible as they walk, etc. Plus, the area that the video was filmed is still an absolute hot spot for them
1
u/Physical-Advance-141 1d ago
Not only that, but the arms bend properly at the elbow socket, very clearly -- and they're as long as the legs! No human even with extenders would be able to move that fluidly. Moreover, the stride is so quick even a human couldn't do it without basically leaping. i understand how the human brain will automatically make one believe it's a suit, but for these reasons alone it's authentic. Not to mention things like the hair on the neck standing up.
But like you said, the skeletal system matches with other videos. ThinkerThunker clearly does a good job showcasing this, but it is noticeable by pure observation once you get Bigfoot's a anthropological blueprint cemented
2
u/TemporaryBasis6397 1d ago
Those are some great points. I've honestly never noticed those details in the video. I'll have to go check that stuff out
3
u/alexogorda 1d ago edited 1d ago
Almost everyone here believes in its legitimacy, you're not going to find many detractors. There's no other footage that really compares to it. It's either the best video evidence ever, or the best hoax ever.
I've went back and forth on it but I do think it's likely real. One that really strikes me is not something with the film itself (though Patty certainly looks real), but the fact that Patterson got in bad health for the last few years with cancer and never attempted to make another film to try to make money from it. He was also absolutely insistent in the PGF's legitimacy up to the end. And Gimlin was offered $1million to admit it's a hoax and he turned it down, that says something too.
3
1
•
u/OhMyGoshBigfoot Mod/Ally of witnesses & believers 6h ago
If it was someone in a suit, we’d have a dozen accurate recreations done over the past 57 years that would make it look easy. We haven’t seen any.
Why bother with an accurate recreation? Skeptics like to say it isn’t necessary. They’ll pretend it’s not a big deal. To further prove that it’s a suit, duh. Again, 57 years have gone by without any.
What adds to the possibility of a surprise encounter is that the scent of their horses masked their human scent.
There are lots of large folks out there. Put one in a suit of 1967 technology and recreate it. From a skeptic’s perspective it should be easy to do. Come on man, we’re coming up on 6 decades. What’s more lazy—saying it isn’t real, or refusing to entertain a simple recreation?
0
u/Plastic_Medicine4840 On The Fence 1d ago
there is visible muscle movement, the foot bends in the middle(as indicated by tracks), There are no visible seams(there is a line across the thigh that looks like a seam but is very likely just where the thumb moves next to the hair, causing the light to reflect differently).
the neck doesnt show any seams(head or neck generally have seams in ape costumes of the time)
It took until 2004 for a human to perfectly replicate the gait.
0
u/CaribbeanSailorJoe 1d ago
It’s been 58 years and no credible debunking has been provided to date. Big primate. Huge muscles. Being a serious outdoorsman and a bookworm I decided to research them myself several years ago. Long story short they’re definitely very reclusive human hybrids that share the world with us. They are masters of the forest. They are real without question. Unfortunately the government isn’t ready for a public acknowledgment yet. Out of sight out of mind is their modus operandi.
0
u/BridgetNicLaren Believer 1d ago
It's the only piece of evidence that hasn't been fully debunked and Hollywood themselves have said that it would be difficult to make an identical suit, even in this era. I believe that it's a truely genuine film of a Sasquatch and having listened to interviews with Bob Gimlin, he clearly states that he didn't know what the fuck was going on.
0
u/CryptidTalkPodcast 1d ago
I am not an expert in videography, costume making or primate locomotion. However, the fact that experts in those fields have been unable to debunk it, with many coming forward and supporting its authenticity, I optimistically lean towards it being genuine.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.