Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

But she does look back at Patterson? The most famous frame is of her literally looking over her shoulder towards the camera.
she looks back ONCE. but she doesnt even glance back as/once he runs across the stream.

you don't need to agree.
I put 'threat' in quotation marks because it seems questionable to me that a huge animal would instantly dart off at the sight of an approaching figure like it were a little rabbit.

I'm a huge animal compared to the monkeys on St. Kitts. and if one of them came charging at me, i wouldn't turn my back to it for a second.

again, you don't have to agree.

but we also have decades of sightings, and if bigfoot doesnt dart off ..one might think someone else somewhere would have shot it. (either with camera or gun)


I'm also quite surprised at the number of people in this thread who look at the video and are convinced it's a suit. That's fair enough of course but I wonder what it is that them think that?
we have all said what convinces us. No need to wonder.

I imagine there are plenty of costume designers that think it could be faked. I know there are experts who think the footprints are real, and yet the majority of the same field experts think they are fake. If the world's foot experts were more in agreement they were real then the bigfoot flap would be taken more seriously by the scientific field.

Is it possible bigfoot (not Pattersons) is real? i hope so.
Is there any really convincing evidence that he might be real? not yet.

again, you don't have to agree.


and some of our comments about specific things may sound flippant, but at least we didnt read a whole thread of the reasons given from the opposing view and say "That's fair enough of course but I wonder what it is that them think that? It doesn't look anything like [a real animal] to me and in my view the examples posted so far look utterly ridiculous in comparison." and then accuse the opposing view of being flippant.
 
Ok, maybe a bad example (although there is a difference between elephants in captivity, and the wild ones). But I am sure also big animals will not slowly wander away from unknowns, but make a bit of an effort. BF does not make any effort (check what it looks like when a gorilla gets some speed, if we may compare).
Plus it wasn't one man standing there. It was one man running toward it, and a total of more than one man and more than one horse In the vicinity. Pair that with the supposed "reclusive" nature of the cryptocritter, and its casual stroll is even more suspicious.
But we can see right there in the video that it's getting further and further away from the camera. A man running toward it and it moving at a casual stroll doesn't match up with that, does it? If it even matters at all - at whatever speed it's walking, it's obviously moving fast enough to put ground between itself and the others. Maybe that's all the effort it felt it needed to make, if it's an animal. And if it's got only a single strand of my cat's DNA in it then I can assure you it wouldn't dream of expending more energy than needed, under no circumstances whatsoever.

she looks back ONCE. but she doesnt even glance back as/once he runs across the stream.

you don't need to agree.
I do agree but I'm not sure how much that matters? Is it only a convincing Bigfoot if it constantly looks back?

BTW, this is how Gimlin tells the story.

13:05
To be able to run on to one, it was like, oh! There is one! And she's walking away. And I'm trying to hold my horse and stay on my horse. Until I did ride across the creek and stepped down off the horse and she turned and made that head turn towards the way I was- I'd be about this angle when I rode across the creek and she was about 200ft from me at that time. And just made that one turn, never even slowed down.
Yes I know he said 'run on to one' but I suppose that's a figure of speech. Or maybe they really did run, although I'm not sure how a person in a suit could then move faster, much less so looking like they're just lazily strolling along.

Also a bit earlier in that video
10:58
There were three different sizes of footprints and this [the encounter] was only about three miles from where the footprints were and it indicated that there was a male, a female and a youth. [...] [There was] the possibility that there was the other two up in the woods somewhere around, and maybe that's why she walked away and did the things that she did [...] And so, to make that a little bit plainer, it would be like she might be doing something to detour us away from the other two, or she might be travelling to where they were, or... it was so many 'ifs'.
Many of his own interpretations in there so take this for what you will.

I'm a huge animal compared to the monkeys on St. Kitts. and if one of them came charging at me, i wouldn't turn my back to it for a second.

again, you don't have to agree.
Yeah I'd imagine I would too. But nobody was charging at whatever the thing in the video was (unless my idea of charging differs from yours).
For what it's worth, I recently happened upon a large deer on a run through the forest. I rounded a corner and there it was, standing on the path 100 metres ahead. Didn't scoot off either, just slowly lumbered off when I got nearer (and I was literally running towards it).

but we also have decades of sightings, and if bigfoot doesnt dart off ..one might think someone else somewhere would have shot it. (either with camera or gun)
I reckon that would depend on how often it lets itself get taken by surprise whilst out in the open like in the video. I agree it all sounds hard to believe but at the same time I don't see how it applies to what we see in the PGF.
we have all said what convinces us. No need to wonder.
Maybe I worded that poorly. I wonder why it seems so convincing to so many when I can't see it myself.

I imagine there are plenty of costume designers that think it could be faked. I know there are experts who think the footprints are real, and yet the majority of the same field experts think they are fake. If the world's foot experts were more in agreement they were real then the bigfoot flap would be taken more seriously by the scientific field.
Sure. But I don't see what science's general interest has got to do with the video.

Is it possible bigfoot (not Pattersons) is real? i hope so.
Is there any really convincing evidence that he might be real? not yet.

again, you don't have to agree.
Agreed on both points. As I said earlier, I just don't think we'll ever have a definite answer. I don't think the video is as obviously fake as some here seem to think but I also don't believe it's in any way evidence that bigfoot exists.

and some of our comments about specific things may sound flippant, but at least we didnt read a whole thread of the reasons given from the opposing view and say "That's fair enough of course but I wonder what it is that them think that? It doesn't look anything like [a real animal] to me and in my view the examples posted so far look utterly ridiculous in comparison." and then accuse the opposing view of being flippant.
I have no problem with opposing views but I feel that some posts here are overly dismissive. Is it improbable that the creature in the film is real? Sure. But in my opinion that doesn't warrant the way some seem to go about this. Aliens are also quite unlikely to visit us so we might as well close down half the board and give a boilerplate message that goes 'aliens don't exist so those lights in the sky are drones/planes/stars, I saw something like it in a movie once'. So I don't know how valid some of the arguments in this thread are. I feel like the only thing we can say about the video with confidence is that we cannot say what it depicts.

I fully agree though that all our arguments are not very strong, as we are talking about an unknown animal (if BF exists at all).
This is the underlying issue, I think. We cannot validate many of our theories because he have nothing to compare them to other than our own imagination of what a real bigfoot should look like or how it should act. At best we've got hunches.
 
This is the underlying issue, I think. We cannot validate many of our theories because he have nothing to compare them to other than our own imagination of what a real bigfoot should look like or how it should act. At best we've got hunches.

Agreed. But also, what are the chances it is an unknown creature, we still have no other footage at all.. Wouldn't we have more (even blurry) images, in todays drone and telephone age? I cannot imagine it is so extremely shy it is never seen. Even more rarer species have been found...
 
Agreed. But also, what are the chances it is an unknown creature, we still have no other footage at all.. Wouldn't we have more (even blurry) images, in todays drone and telephone age? I cannot imagine it is so extremely shy it is never seen. Even more rarer species have been found...
Those lines of thought I'd follow if this thread was titled 'Does bigfoot exist?', and I'd probably come to the same conclusions. But this too is conjecture and not based on evidence. The question here is if the PGF is a hoax - whether or not it is unlikely to capture a bigfoot on film isn't really the question here. It's also unlikely to win the lottery yet somebody somewhere produces a winning ticket pretty much every week. We can question some suspicious ticket's validity but saying it's probably a fake because winning the lottery is unlikely doesn't solve the case either.
 
Those lines of thought I'd follow if this thread was titled 'Does bigfoot exist?', and I'd probably come to the same conclusions.
I am pretty sure that we can all agree on one point: if bigfoot does not exist, the film does not show one. Which sends me off to YouTube to watch Ranger Park (the Park Ranger) and his bigfoot documentary from "Futurama" one more time...


Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sXOebOaBFV4


Edited to provide link. PS:
in the show, bigfoot in fact exists.

Edited to provide link
 
I am pretty sure that we can all agree on one point: if bigfoot does not exist, the film does not show one. Which sends me off to YouTube to watch Ranger Park (the Park Ranger) and his bigfoot documentary from "Futurama" one more time...
Edited to provide link. PS:
in the show, bigfoot in fact exists.

Edited to provide link

The disclaimers in the Futurama clip is hilarious. "In this forest dwells the Big Foot perhaps, if not they don't". I love that show!
 
BTW, this is how Gimlin tells the story.
I'm only talking about the film. so the man holding the camera ie Patterson.

So I don't know how valid some of the arguments in this thread are.
i concur there are some arguments on both sides of the issue (in this thread and outside this thread) that seem a bit off to me. Like that one expert dismissing it because (paraphrase) 'she has breasts yet walks like a man'. He can't tell from that video if the gait is a male walk.
 
Plus it wasn't one man standing there. It was one man running toward it, and a total of more than one man and more than one horse In the vicinity. Pair that with the supposed "reclusive" nature of the cryptocritter, and its casual stroll is even more suspicious.
hardly casual, the stride length is quite impressive. You can freeze a complete step in the above clip to see how long a stride it is. I just cant envisage this thing running, it doesnt appear 'built' to run. I think it was intended to represent some apex animal, and what would it have to run from? bears maybe. Puzzling to me that it's literally 'larger than life': 16" prints, 7' tall is the typical eyewitness figure given (where are all the youngsters ? ). I agree with Easy Muffin that I simply dont 'see' a suit in the stabilized cleaned-up version. What I can see is a bias that this cannot exist and therefore it must be a suit. That was the initial reaction of one of the first viewers (and they were some highly regarded people, Patterson wanted approval from academia): 'what I'm seeing goes against everything I know, so it must be a hoax'.

regarding gait: "Studies on human perception have identified pelvis and torso motion as key discriminators between male and female gaits. However, while most observers would advocate that men and women walk differently, consistent findings and explanations of sex differences in gait kinematics across modern empirical studies are rare. In the present study we evaluated sex differences in whole body gait kinematics from a large sample of subjects (55 men, 36 women) walking at self selected speeds." The report is easily found if you want to read it. I think a guy like John Napier was pretty confident when he said that (the interview is on YT). Yet the thing has breasts.
 
and what would it have to run from? bears maybe.
bears, wolf packs, guns, mountain lions. it's not a matter of whether an animal would win a fight, it's a matter of can an animal engage in a fight and survive it's injuries. they dont have bigfoot ERs or antibiotics stalls in the deep woods.

are there any known animals that can't run?
 
bears, wolf packs, guns, mountain lions. it's not a matter of whether an animal would win a fight, it's a matter of can an animal engage in a fight and survive it's injuries. they dont have bigfoot ERs or antibiotics stalls in the deep woods.

are there any known animals that can't run?

Gastropoda.

Joking, but I agree.
 
bears, wolf packs, guns, mountain lions. it's not a matter of whether an animal would win a fight, it's a matter of can an animal engage in a fight and survive it's injuries. they dont have bigfoot ERs or antibiotics stalls in the deep woods.

are there any known animals that can't run?
It's also a matter of an animal being either apprehensive or curious about any unfamiliar animal it encounters, something I've often seen in the woods that surround my house. Even powerful animals generally move away from ones they don't know, as bears will usually avoid humans unless they're provoked or startled. (Somewhere there's a great video of a bear being treed by a house cat.) If our cryptocritter is that casual, it suggests it's familiar with both people and horses, and that's not something that squares with either its supposed reclusive nature or its "seldom seen" reputation.
 
Even powerful animals generally move away from ones they don't know,
That's exactly what we can see it do in the PGF?

If our cryptocritter is that casual, it suggests it's familiar with both people and horses, and that's not something that squares with either its supposed reclusive nature or its "seldom seen" reputation.
Penguins aren't familiar with humans either and they're famously friendly towards us.
 
I agree with Easy Muffin that I simply dont 'see' a suit in the stabilized cleaned-up version.
What I also don't see is a neck.

And the coloring is consistent with a head piece, there's un-alive body hair near the hands, and strangely colored soles, baggy drawers, and hairy breasts. Just because you don't see a zipper doesn't mean it doesn't look like a suit.

Yet the thing has breasts.
If you want bigfoot to be big, you want the female to be as big as a large human male, implying the male bigfoot is even bigger. (btw, that's the motivation to let a man do this job.)

If you were looking for small, you'd simply end up with a Mexican Monkey.
 
Penguins aren't familiar with humans either and they're famously friendly towards us.
Yes. That's why penguins are no cryptids.

That's not to say there can't be a penguin Bigfoot:
Article:
A penguin species that lived millions of years ago would have dwarfed today’s biggest living penguins and stood as tall as most humans, according to analysis of fossils by a team of researchers from the La Plata Museum in Argentina.
SmartSelect_20220717-190227_Samsung Internet.jpg

We're just a few million years too late to see it.
 
If our cryptocritter is that casual, it suggests it's familiar with both people and horses, and that's not something that squares with either its supposed reclusive nature or its "seldom seen" reputation.
and i would guess guns. this was the late 60s after all, most woods folk back then weren't like the yuppie families that go glamping today. Her chances of not getting shot in the 60s is way less then it might be today.
 
Let me just repeat myself because I think this keeps getting mixed up - the question here is not if Bigfoot is real, the question is if the PGF is a hoax. But from many of the points raised here it seems lots of people have already made up their minds that there is no such thing as a Bigfoot and that therefore it is obviously a person in a suit, and that's the end of that. But those points don't tackle the film. For the purpose of this thread it doesn't matter if someone thinks that a real creature should behave differently, or that we should have more sightings if it were real, or that some footprints may or may not have been faked.
The simple facts are that the PGF does exist and that is does depict this creature. So all these circumstantial arguments are just that, circumstantial. They don't change a thing about the film itself.
So realistically speaking, can we use those to definitely throw the PGF out as fake? No. If we are being honest we are going to have to say that we do not know what we're looking at. Find a way to prove that the creature in the video is a person in suit if you want to claim it's a hoax but don't go on about the chances of finding one in the wild or whether or not you think it's not how a real Bigfoot would react to humans. Your appealing to improbability isn't going to help that case.
 
Let me just repeat myself because I think this keeps getting mixed up - the question here is not if Bigfoot is real, the question is if the PGF is a hoax. But from many of the points raised here it seems lots of people have already made up their minds that there is no such thing as a Bigfoot and that therefore it is obviously a person in a suit, and that's the end of that. But those points don't tackle the film. For the purpose of this thread it doesn't matter if someone thinks that a real creature should behave differently, or that we should have more sightings if it were real, or that some footprints may or may not have been faked. The simple facts are that the PGF does exist and that is does depict this creature. So all these circumstantial arguments are just that, circumstantial. They don't change a thing about the film itself.
So realistically speaking, can we use those to definitely throw the PGF out as fake? No. If we are being honest we are going to have to say that we do not know what we're looking at. Find a way to prove that the creature in the video is a person in suit if you want to claim it's a hoax but don't go on about the chances of finding one in the wild or whether or not you think it's not how a real Bigfoot would react to humans. Your appealing to improbability isn't going to help that case.
As @JMartJr already replied TO YOU,

"I am pretty sure that we can all agree on one point: if bigfoot does not exist, the film does not show one."
So the question "is bigfoot real" is entirely germane to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
For the purpose of this thread it doesn't matter if someone thinks that a real creature should behave differently, or that we should have more sightings if it were real, or that some footprints may or may not have been faked.
You mean there's a chance Patterson faked the footprints, but the Bigfoot was real?

Or that the behaviour is unnatural, but the Bigfoot is natural? it just ate something weird in the morning, and that explains the "clown shoes" gait and the non-reclusiveness that day? and that the people who wonder why Patterson finds a Bigfoot the year after he publishes a book with a sketch that's, in hindsight, more accurate than, say, medieval European pictures of African animals that actually existed, are biased acainst Bigfoot and not against Patterson?

medieval-animal-elephant.jpeg.jpg

Like @jamesrav , who has ignored the arguments in favor of it being a suit with the mantra "What I can see is a bias that this cannot exist and therefore it must be a suit", you are dismissing the arguments addressed at the creature in this film to declare "lots of people have already made up their minds that there is no such thing as a Bigfoot".

medieval-animal-paintings-that-dont-look-real-daniel-holland-fb17-png__700.jpg

Logical argument and evidence are valid regardless of the person pointing them out. Not they who ask questions are biased, it's those who won't hear the answers.
 
Last edited:
the YT channel Sasquatch Archives posted the famous BBC 'documentary' on Bigfoot (narrator concludes "impossible to exist"), which has the rather comical attempt to recreate the famous walk with a costume that really does look like a costume. But beyond that, it has a brief segment with Grover Krantz, the first academic to get on the side of Bigfoot being possible. He demonstrates the complexity of the walk, and in his typical direct language calls it "inhuman". Yet the second after a noted anthropologist/primatologist says the walk is inhuman (to carry on for a distance), the host says he just demonstrated it, so it is possible and therefore its a man in a suit. Hard to argue with that :). I recall the Fox show "Amazing Hoaxes" which was the first attempt to discredit the film, and one guy flat-out claimed it was a guy named Clyde Romney in the suit. He said Romney told him he was the guy in the suit (although he walks nothing like the subject and denied ever saying that). So how many people were in the suit?
 
For the purpose of this thread it doesn't matter if someone thinks that a real creature should behave differently
of course it matters. it is a blurry long distance film ie. we cant see much of detail of the fur or feet or face etc. so what we CAN see is blurry movement; it's behavior.

If you see a film of a giraffe walking a tightrope, we can assume the film is fake. If "experts" can examine it's gait, why cant we examine it's overall behavior?

I think you are being a tad bit unfair, most (if not all) "off film specific topic" comments are directed in response to theories thrown out by the "doesnt look like a suit" crowd.



I dont think one can just accept it's a real animal because they "can't see seams" or because "disney said so". If we can't examine the whole picture surrounding this specific film (Pattersons history and the making of the film) then this thread AND Patterson's film is useless because the "creature" is too blurry.

It's not really up to us to prove it's a suit, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
Cryptids and aliens are potentially real as long as they're good at hiding. As long as there's no actual evidence, conspiracy theorists are welcome to believe the improbable is real.

But Patterson's Bigfoot came out of hiding, and that needs a motive. Wild animals enter human settlements in winter when food is scarce. But why is this Bigfoot now leaving extremely clear, extraordinary footprints in a place where no such footprints were seen before, or after?

Either this Bigfoot is good at hiding, then why is there?
Or it is bad at hiding, then why was it never seen again?
Or is there some reason for the Bigfoot to be good at hiding, but bad on the exact day that Patterson wants to film one? for it to never leave any footprints except on that day?

The "man in a suit" hypothesis is so compelling because it explains all that. It explains all of Patterson's evidence, and explains the lack of the evidence he does not provide. It gives us the feeling that we understand what's going on.

As a Bigfoot believer, you give up on all of that understanding, trust Patterson, and "believe your eyes", which by coincidence is the same thing Flat Earthers do (and everyone who's not with them is deemed a sheep or a shill).

I'm happy to believe in some things that I can't explain. But when I have a good explanation, why would I eschew it?
 
"I am pretty sure that we can all agree on one point: if bigfoot does not exist, the film does not show one."
So the question "is bigfoot real" is entirely germane to the discussion.
Okay, so prove a negative. Show that Bigfoot doesn't exist and I'll happily reconsider.

You mean there's a chance Patterson faked the footprints, but the Bigfoot was real?
Of course there is. If you go out tonight and lay some fake cow tracks across the next village, does that turn the farmer's cows into cryptids when I show up to film them the next morning? One's got no bearing on the other.

Or that the behaviour is unnatural, but the Bigfoot is natural? it just ate something weird in the morning, and that explains the "clown shoes" gait and the non-reclusiveness that day? and that the people who wonder why Patterson finds a Bigfoot the year after he publishes a book with a sketch that's, in hindsight, more accurate than, say, medieval European pictures of African animals that actually existed, are biased acainst Bigfoot and not against Patterson?
Biased against the creature in the film being faked. Your ideas of how it should walk instead or what a coincidence it was for Patterson to find it in the first place don't address this. You could use them as arguments if we knew for sure what a real Bigfoot walks like or at least what one looks like but until then all these arguments hold no water. Who says the 'clown shows' gait needs to be explained? What makes you so sure the sketch is more accurate? Are you comparing it to your personal image of what you think the real thing is like? How could you use that to explain away the creature in the PGF?
Again - this is not about the chances of Bigfoot being real, this is about the film being faked or not.

Like @jamesrav , who has ignored the arguments in favor of it being a suit with the mantra "What I can see is a bias that this cannot exist and therefore it must be a suit", you are dismissing the arguments addressed at the creature in this film to declare "lots of people have already made up their minds that there is no such thing as a Bigfoot".
Did I say at any point that it's definitely not a suit? No. I'm not dismissing arguments, I'm merely pointing out that they don't apply to the question of is the film faked or not and so shouldn't be made in the first place, and that many points raised seem like foregone conclusions based on personal imagination.
I've also not seen any convincing case being made for this being a suit other than people pointing at movie examples etc and saying, see? Looks like one of these. To which I'll reply, well no it doesn't though.

Logical argument and evidence are valid regardless of the person pointing them out. Not they who ask questions are biased, it's those who won't hear the answers.
This is quite funny actually because I feel I've been repeating myself several times already with barely anyone listening. I'll just do it again then - your arguments do not answer the question at hand and your evidence is vastly based on conjecture.

If you see a film of a giraffe walking a tightrope, we can assume the film is fake. If "experts" can examine it's gait, why cant we examine it's overall behavior?
The gait is one of the few hard data points we got because it's right there in the video so it affords us an opportunity for objective analysis. We can try to figure out if it resembles other known animals, if something about it would be exclusive to human walking and so on.
A giraffe on a tightrope is rather more absurd than the PGF, isn't it? If you see a film of a giraffe walking along the side of a creek, would you assume it's fake? I'd guess you won't.

It's not really up to us to prove it's a suit, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Many here seem quite eager to do so, though.
You could also argue that the PGF is extraordinary evidence. Clear footage of a cryptid in broad daylight.

But Patterson's Bigfoot came out of hiding, and that needs a motive. Wild animals enter human settlements in winter when food is scarce. But why is this Bigfoot now leaving extremely clear, extraordinary footprints in a place where no such footprints were seen before, or after?
There were reports of footprints in the area from the time before the film. That's the reason Patterson and Gimlin drove all the way down there in the first place - because they figured that would make it a good spot to try and find one.

Either this Bigfoot is good at hiding, then why is there?
It's not unheard of for animals to seek fresh water sources, is it? As opposed to animals that do nothing but hide all day.

Or it is bad at hiding, then why was it never seen again?
Who says noone ever saw a Bigfoot again?

Or is there some reason for the Bigfoot to be good at hiding, but bad on the exact day that Patterson wants to film one?
Patterson had been trying to film one for weeks at that point. He didn't just ride up, start shooting and there she was. Maybe what you suggest is exactly what happened. Maybe if she hid better we wouldn't have the PGF, and if she hid worse we'd not have one PGF, but 10, or 100, or 1000.

for it to never leave any footprints except on that day?
This is incorrect as explained above. But again we're now back to discussing the possibility of Bigfoot being real, not the validity of the PGF.
 
The gait is one of the few hard data points we got because it's right there in the video
no, it actually isn't. not to the extent that you can actually SEE what is being claimed.

so it affords us an opportunity for objective analysis.
You could use them as arguments if we knew for sure what a real Bigfoot walks like or at least what one looks like but until then all these arguments hold no water.
but non-suit believers can use "the walk" (and the look) to determine it can't be a man, when they don't know what a Bigfoot walks like or a man pretending to walk like an ape over a sandy hilly surface in a heavily padded suit can walk like?

that sounds like a double standard.

A giraffe on a tightrope is rather more absurd than the PGF, isn't it?
more absurd than a wild animal turning her back to unknown threat running at HER and just casually walking away?
We think it's absurd she would act that way under the circumstances. That's why we brought it up. You aren't obligated to agree.
I'm much less familiar with giraffes, than i am with animals in the woods of North America..so i'm not sure how absurd it would be to see a giraffe on a tightrope. don't bears walk tightropes in the circus? are giraffes incapable of putting one foot in front of the other? maybe they are. i don't know.



[ ], if something about it would be exclusive to human walking and so on.
human in a padded suit walking while pretending to be a cryptid.

We can try to figure out if it resembles other known animals, [...]
that's what we are doing with its behavior SEEN in the film.

I don't understand the difference you appear to be arguing about.


Many here seem quite eager to do so, though. [argue that it is a suit]<brackets added by deirdre to clarify context
I dont think "many" people sound particularly "eager". This is a forum for skeptics to look at alleged evidence skeptically. This isnt a forum designed to blindly believe the Wizard of Oz is real, it's a forum designed to see if there could be a man behind the curtain.

SO people post OP questions:
is the Patterson film a hoax?
is this blob in the sky an extraterrestrial UFO?
is this contrail a chemtrail?
is Justin Beiber a lizard person because his eyes flutter weird?


and the only answer to every OP is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" ? that would make for a pretty boring forum.

You could also argue that the PGF is extraordinary evidence. Clear footage of a cryptid in broad daylight.
sure you could. knock yourself out.

I myself disagree with that assessment, but that's me.
TO me, it's just a blurry film. extraordinary evidence would be clear footage that doesnt look like the Blair Witch film makers made it.
or a strand of hair they found on the trees she brushed past as she disappeared into the woods..i mean they saw where she disappeared, hard to believe she wouldn't leave a strand of hair.
or a film of a creature whose breasts are in the right spot, whose face doesn't look exactly like my friend Johnny in a gorilla hair hat and fake beard.

We are allowed to agree to disagree, you know. (and i like the idea of Bigfoot. i appreciate you and james trying to defend her honor.. i just dont agree with yall in this particular case)
 
If you go out tonight and lay some fake cow tracks across the next village, does that turn the farmer's cows into cryptids when I show up to film them the next morning?
Why would I do that when I can simply film real cow tracks?
AFTER I have already filmed the cow, if I get that right?

Why would you trust a cow track faker? simply because nobody has produced a believable cow suit?
adults-inflatable-cow-costume.jpg

What makes you so sure the sketch is more accurate?
because we have Patterson's sketch and footage (here in the thread), and I've seen elephants.
you say it yourself: this is not about the chances of Bigfoot bei
If you see a film of a giraffe walking along the side of a creek, would you assume it's fake? I'd guess you won't.
ng real, this is about the film being faked or not.


Who says the 'clown shows' gait needs to be explained?
I'd like it explained because I like to understand the world around me. That's why I prefer explanations to no explanations, and true explanations to false ones.
And I don't understand why Bigfoot is the only mammal/primate with a clown shoes gait when not wearing clown shoes.

I've also not seen any convincing case being made for this being a suit other than people pointing at movie examples etc and saying, see? Looks like one of these.
That was a response to the argument that nobody can make believable ape suits.

If you see a film of a giraffe walking along the side of a creek, would you assume it's fake? I'd guess you won't.
Yes I would, unless it looked like a zoo or an African creek.
Article:
12-monkeys-1024x423.jpg

Who says noone ever saw a Bigfoot again
This Bigfoot. We're talking about the film, not Bigfoots in general, remember?

Maybe if she hid better we wouldn't have the PGF, and if she hid worse we'd not have one PGF, but 10, or 100, or 1000.
Yes. Both scenarios are more believable than the one we have.

There were reports of footprints in the area from the time before the film.
Do we have evidence of this? Who saw them?

your arguments do not answer the question at hand and your evidence is vastly based on conjecture.
Unless you're more detailed, I can't take this serious.
 
Great. Experts say it's male, boobs say it's female, therefore it's a fake, case closed?
therefore its a farce, not a (human) fake. Why would Patterson make such a ridiculous addition? Just to match the Roe drawing? Mix male (walk) and female (breasts) characteristics and hope this would help the situation as regards the experts? Makes no sense. I'm admittedly into the little discussed '3rd option' here (its neither a hoax or real animal) . The very controversial Bigfoot figure Jon-Erik Beckjord was probably the first to put forth this option, to much ridicule of course (one rare point of agreement for the hoax/real animal contingent - they both thought he was nuts). Unlike the hoax / real animal group its not an investigable option so it leads no where. But in watching a recent interview with Demis Hassabis on YT , he does mention the Simulation Theory , and when asked about "The Purpose of Life" had an interesting take. He found it "suspicious" that the Universe seems to be designed for obtaining information about it (ie math and physics actually work to explain it). He chuckled at the end and said "I have my suspicions" , which to me implied he felt there was more to reality than meets the eye. Once you bring in the possibility of the Universe being a simulation then something as farcical as a (fleeting, non-persistent) Bigfoot becomes possible. Our successful, game-designing, website host, would probably agree on that.
 
Show that Bigfoot doesn't exist and I'll happily reconsider.
To me this seems an admission that discussion of whether or not Bigfoot exists is, in fact, on topic for this thread. So I'll fold that into my summation of my own thinking:

At the risk of repeating myself at least in part -- Since the film is of such poor quality, making in-depth analysis less useful, the circumstances surrounding it's being shot loom particularly large:
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film):
In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend. Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.

There has been at least one claim to have supplied the suit, from Morris Costumes here in NC. I regard that claim as somewhat dubious, in that the claimed similar suit later demonstrated by Mr. Morris seems a bad match. HOWEVER, if I were in pre-production/production for a bigfoot move, I would consider shooting test footage of several suits, and if a single suit was all I had access to (due to budget, possibly) and it didn't look good on film, I might doctor it up to make it look better/different. Especially if I had some skills working with leather and the like. Given what we know, it would be very unusual for Patterson NOT to acquire, and shoot test footage of, a bigfoot suit at some point. Test footage would include things like how the suit looked with somebody walking while wearing it. There would also be some PR and possibly direct monetary value to such a film, if it were claimed to be real.

We know that the drawing made by Patterson in 1966 resembles the gait/stance, and the (delicate pause) pectoral endowment of the "creature" in the movie.

We have an unproven claim by one person to have been the one wearing the suit that day.

That is all starting to look like a compelling circumstantial case made up of means, motive and opportunity to shoot footage of a man in a suit and pass it off as real.

We have the unfortunate fact that proof of the existence of a large bipedal probably-hominid creature tromping around large swaths of North America (exactly how large depends on which stories you credit) still has never come to light, in spite of the continent now swarming with road-kill producing highways and roads; hunters armed with gear for hunting bears and similarly sized game; campers, loggers, hikers,rangers, etc armed with increasingly good and ready-to-hand cameras; teams of "researchers" filming their own TV documentaries about searching for (but never, ever finding) bigfoot; etc. The "creature" continues to bound playfully through out-of-focus areas on the edge of detection.

Your mileage may, of course, vary, but to my mind the chances of bigfoot existing, sadly, are close to zero and getting closer with each day that passes without proof being brought to light. If the critter ain't real, then the film is a hoax, and the only question is whether somebody hoaxed P&G, or whether P&G hoaxed the rest of us. Given the various reasons mentioned above to believe that Patterson would have acquired and filmed a bigfoot suit, even if not at the time intending a hoax, I suspect that the hoax was directed at the rest of us by the filmmaker. If bigfoot is shown to exist, and to look like the film, I would be happy to admit that I was probably wrong.
 
Why would Patterson make such a ridiculous addition?
Of breasts, I'm assuming. Here, I would be VERY interested in knowing if any trace of the fictionalized movie about the Ape Canyon incident still exists. Did the script call for a specifically female bigfoot? Or was he just matching the drawing, as he did with his own drawing the previous year?

Once you bring in the possibility of the Universe being a simulation then something as farcical as a (fleeting, non-persistent) Bigfoot becomes possible.
If you are really wanting to go there, serious discussion is probably over -- nothing is provable or disprovable under that assumption, it's a high-tech sounding version of "and then magic happened..."
 
Of breasts, I'm assuming. Here, I would be VERY interested in knowing if any trace of the fictionalized movie about the Ape Canyon incident still exists. Did the script call for a specifically female bigfoot? Or was he just matching the drawing, as he did with his own drawing the previous year?


If you are really wanting to go there, serious discussion is probably over -- nothing is provable or disprovable under that assumption, it's a high-tech sounding version of "and then magic happened..."
well, the 'discussion' has gone nowhere since 1967, its two camps and neither has a smoking gun piece of data. the pro-camp has done a much better job analyzing the film and coming to the conclusion that its very close to impossible to duplicate (the costume, the gait). How many experts do you need saying "costume cant be faked" "gait cant be duplicated by a human" to conclude it was not a hoax. On the other side, how many experts do you need saying a breeding population of undiscovered, ape-men in the US in the year 2022 is just not possible to conclude that its not a manimal or whatever designation you want to give it. As Sherlock Holmes said "

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.​

now of course it must be mentioned that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in the veracity of the Cottingley fairy pictures :)
 
How many experts do you need saying "costume cant be faked" "gait cant be duplicated by a human" to conclude it was not a hoax.
Quintessential arguments from incredulity. You seem to be requesting that non-believers prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, while simultaneously refusing to use the same standards of proof about the gait and the costume.

As an aside, I was occasionally amused to watch a TV show called "Finding bigfoot" (spoiler: they didn't) in which people bumbled about in the woods at night. They tended to hear common woodland animal noises, and solemnly nod at each other, saying "Sounds Squatchy". The defenders of the legend on this whole thread seems to be exhibiting the same level of scientific rigor.

Get back to us if and when there is any concrete evidence for the creature.
 
Get back to us if and when there is any concrete evidence for the creature.
... that doesn't make large numbers of humans who are familiar with humans say "but that's *obviously* just a man in a suit" and facepalm.

(And I'd say that the offence was appeal to authority more than argument from incredulity, but we're casting lots at this point.)
 
Quintessential arguments from incredulity. You seem to be requesting that non-believers prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, while simultaneously refusing to use the same standards of proof about the gait and the costume.

As an aside, I was occasionally amused to watch a TV show called "Finding bigfoot" (spoiler: they didn't) in which people bumbled about in the woods at night. They tended to hear common woodland animal noises, and solemnly nod at each other, saying "Sounds Squatchy". The defenders of the legend on this whole thread seems to be exhibiting the same level of scientific rigor.

Get back to us if and when there is any concrete evidence for the creature.
I too find those shows ridiculous, and have never watched any. I believe even Rob Lowe got involved. It's pathetic. The scientific investigation mostly took place in the 60's to 80's, after that I think there was a lull since many of those people got too old or died. Plus it was becoming apparent that there would be no easy solution. If Jeff Meldrum had not stepped in to replace Grover Krantz this would be a rudderless ship for the believers. As to the gait, did you watch Grover recreate the walk? Have you seen the athlete try to re-create it in Legend Meets Science? Its all on YT, anyone can be a Bigfoot gait expert in a few clicks lol. I'm just saying that when a top expert (like Krantz) says the walk is "inhuman" , explains why in a clear manner, then the skeptic has to counter that. They have not in my opinion. For the host of that show to flippantly counter Krantz and end with "whatever" is not scientific examination. The pro-camp has done all the research, the hoax-camp just throws rocks.
 
the hoax-camp just throws rocks.
Respectfully disagree. "Experts" have purportedly analyzed the film and reached incompatably opposite conclusions. Far as I can tell, neither is throwing rocks, they are just finding different interpretations of a film with insufficient resolution of its subject to tell much. Folks here have explained their reasons for not believing the film to be genuine -- that may feel like being on the receiving end of a rock storm if you strongly believe the opposite, I'd imagine. But that feeling may owe more to the one perceiving the rocks incoming than to the intentions of the one perceived as throwing 'em.
Anyway, as you note this has been dissected for a long time, with no "smoking rock" to clinch the case. Everything has been said, but every decade a new group if folks get to say it. I'm comfortable filing this one as Hoax Pending New Discoveries or Evidence. I am not uncomfortable with somebody else using a different label on their file.
Barring new points being raised, I'm going to try and step away... got other fish to fry.
 
Respectfully disagree. "Experts" have purportedly analyzed the film and reached incompatably opposite conclusions. Far as I can tell, neither is throwing rocks, they are just finding different interpretations of a film with insufficient resolution of its subject to tell much. Folks here have explained their reasons for not believing the film to be genuine -- that may feel like being on the receiving end of a rock storm if you strongly believe the opposite, I'd imagine. But that feeling may owe more to the one perceiving the rocks incoming than to the intentions of the one perceived as throwing 'em.
Anyway, as you note this has been dissected for a long time, with no "smoking rock" to clinch the case. Everything has been said, but every decade a new group if folks get to say it. I'm comfortable filing this one as Hoax Pending New Discoveries or Evidence. I am not uncomfortable with somebody else using a different label on their file.
Barring new points being raised, I'm going to try and step away... got other fish to fry.
I cant object to what you say. What will happen in the next decade(s) is hard to say, without a new good case (with video proof) I think Bigfootetry is going to decline once Meldrum retires and /or passes away. Same with Gimlin (and if he makes a death-bed confession, then it's all over of course). I do have an unconventional take on the existence of Bigfoot, so I dont have high hopes a future good case is going to occur (too many cameras). Same with non-Military UFO sightings. Maybe it (Bigfoot and the PG film) served a purpose to entertain us for a while, and that time is over. Of course skeptics will scoff at that and say lack of new evidence (cases) is evidence of absence. But I will always have a memory of Grover Krantz trying to mimic the walk, say its inhuman, and then trying to understand how skeptics dismiss that out of hand.
 
Back
Top