Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

johne1618

Active Member
I now think that the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film shown here is probably a hoax.

Source: https://youtu.be/TjhhFj3Vua0

Researcher Greg Long has investigated the case and concludes it was a hoax (see his 2004 book). Here he talks on a 2016 interview published on YouTube on Jan 18, 2022.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWmKQU4Hg34


In part 2 we hear from Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to be wearing the Bigfoot suit, and we hear from author Michael Greene who has interviewed Philip Morris who claimed to have made the Bigfoot suit.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHRLgMTB7A
 
Last edited:

VFXual

New Member
Once I saw a stabilized version of the footage it became very obvious to me that this was a man in a suit.

You can ignore the guy talking over this but just watching it.....walks like a man. The shaky cam was doing a lot of heavy lifting

 

Rocky

Active Member
I now think that the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film shown here is probably a hoax.

Source: https://youtu.be/TjhhFj3Vua0

Researcher Greg Long has investigated the case and concludes it was a hoax (see his 2004 book). Here he talks on a 2016 interview published on YouTube on Jan 18, 2022.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWmKQU4Hg34


In part 2 we hear from Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to be wearing the Bigfoot suit, and we hear from author Michael Greene who has interviewed Philip Morris who claimed to have made the Bigfoot suit.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHRLgMTB7A
This is ancient history and was debunked a long time ago. Philip Morris exposed that he made the suit back in the 70’s.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I now think that the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film shown here is probably a hoax.
...ery obvious to me that this was a man in a suit...walks like a man. The shaky cam was doing a lot of heavy lifting
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzoIvwNqKpw

This is ancient history and was debunked a long time ago...
Yeah, between the "which is most likely?" test and the various confessions over the years...it's a hard sell...
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
This is ancient history and was debunked a long time ago. Philip Morris exposed that he made the suit back in the 70’s.
Yes, but I'm seeing a resurgence of claims on paranormal sites about various features that "can't be faked." (The reasons WHY they can't be faked are normally not given.) So it's ancient history, and has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but it's also current events in terms of what people are falling for -- or at least are being encouraged to fall for.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Yes, but I'm seeing a resurgence of claims on paranormal sites about various features that "can't be faked." (The reasons WHY they can't be faked are normally not given.) So it's ancient history, and has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but it's also current events in terms of what people are falling for -- or at least are being encouraged to fall for.
UFO videos that are well and truly debunked make an appearance on Reddit etc about once every 3 months or so, it's never-ending.
 

Murray

New Member
54 years later with everyone on the planet carrying cameras, yet still no pic or video of an alien spacecraft as clear as this.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Boy did that film scare the s%*t outa me when I was younger!

I grew up in suburban housing tract, but my grandparents had some land next to Lassen National Forest that we would visit. I remember being about 9-10 years old and having just seen this footage on TV before we went "up to the woods". My dad suggested that me and my younger brother "head up to the 'ol fishing hole" a 1/2 mile or so up the creek
...through heavy timber:oops:
...just the two of us:oops:
...in Northern California Bigfoot country:oops:

In part 2 we hear from Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to be wearing the Bigfoot suit, and we hear from author Michael Greene who has interviewed Philip Morris who claimed to have made the Bigfoot suit.
There has been some push back on these parts of Long's theory. Like with the original, it becomes stories vs. stories with no real evidence. Although one could say the film is evidence.

Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.
Content from External Source
Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing different ape suits in many respects.
Content from External Source
Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume, but only by attaching Morris's loose hands and feet to the costume,[261] and by replacing Morris's mask.[262] However, there's nothing he wrote on suit modification. There's no evidence or testimony that Patterson changed the Morris suit to horsehide, or dyed it a darker color, or cut it in half at the waist to agree with Heironimus's description.
Content from External Source
I've always found the fact that Patterson was trying to make a Bigfoot film prior to the encounter a little suspicious. He had been shooting and working out a story line and using people like Heironimus 4-5 months before heading to NorCal.

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.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.
Content from External Source
In addition is the timeline:

Critics claim that too much happened between the filming (at 1:15 at the earliest) and the filmmakers' arrival in Willow Creek (at 6:30 at the latest). Daegling wrote, "All of the problems with the timeline disappear if the film is shot a few days or hours beforehand. If that is the case, one has to wonder what other details of this story are wrong."[60][61] The film's defenders retort that although the time window was tight, it was do-able.[62]
Content from External Source
To my knowledge, the leader of the original film containing the date it was developed and possibly the lab that did it has never been shown. Why?

Ultimately, it's the lack of any hard to hoax evidence like scat, hair, skeletal remains or DNA vs something like a shaky film that can be hoaxed. At least if we're talking about a flesh and blood Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is a space/time portal hopping alien creature that can appear anywhere at anytime, than I'm not going back to the 'ol fishing hole.

All external content:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Boy did that film scare the s%*t outa me when I was younger!

I grew up in suburban housing tract, but my grandparents had some land next to Lassen National Forest that we would visit. I remember being about 9-10 years old and having just seen this footage on TV before we went "up to the woods". My dad suggested that me and my younger brother "head up to the 'ol fishing hole" a 1/2 mile or so up the creek
...through heavy timber:oops:
...just the two of us:oops:
...in Northern California Bigfoot country:oops:


There has been some push back on these parts of Long's theory. Like with the original, it becomes stories vs. stories with no real evidence. Although one could say the film is evidence.

Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.
Content from External Source
Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing different ape suits in many respects.
Content from External Source
Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume, but only by attaching Morris's loose hands and feet to the costume,[261] and by replacing Morris's mask.[262] However, there's nothing he wrote on suit modification. There's no evidence or testimony that Patterson changed the Morris suit to horsehide, or dyed it a darker color, or cut it in half at the waist to agree with Heironimus's description.
Content from External Source

I've never known what to make of the Morris story -- other than having been in Morris Costumes consumer-level shop (it is a few miles from my house), where they sell pretty standard Halloween stuff and rent clown costumes and the like, I have seen some of the fancy stuff they do for pro clients on display and it is impressive. It is always possible that Morris sold them a suit, but it is not the one seen in the film -- being in pre-production for a low-budget fictional monster-movie about Bigfoot, they might well have shot test footage of more than one suit. If, as I have read, their script was going to based on the Ape Canyon incident, they might even have needed more than one suit, as the story would involve more than one 'squatch.


I've always found the fact that Patterson was trying to make a Bigfoot film prior to the encounter a little suspicious. He had been shooting and working out a story line and using people like Heironimus 4-5 months before heading to NorCal.
I find it HUGELY suspicious. It provides method, means and motive for a hoax. And the more I look at the film, the more it looks like test footage for a suit, to see what it looks like on film, walking, looking around, etc. That is not proof of fraud -- it is still possible that a guy who would need to own or rent bigfoot costume(s), would need to shoot test footage of it/them, and would profit from publicity increasing interest in bigfoot in the event he got his movie made, would also happen to stumble across a real bigfoot (assuming there are any) and shoot the only footage clearly showing one of them walking along in the open at close-ish range. But it don't pass the smell test.



To my knowledge, the leader of the original film containing the date it was developed and possibly the lab that did it has never been shown. Why?
Possibly because the original reel of film is lost, what we have now are copies. I am not knowledgeable of the procedures for making duplicates of a reel of film, but would the leader necessarily be included? It is tempting to speculate that it is missing because it tells us something that contradicts claims made, timelines and such, but I guess it would be more fair to say that in its absence we're missing one bit of corroboration we might have had, at least.
 

Murray

New Member
I've always found the fact that Patterson was trying to make a Bigfoot film prior to the encounter a little suspicious
Even more suspicious imo...after FINALLY finding a bigfoot, he never returned to that location ever again for further "study." Instead, he continued to search for bigfoot proof everywhere except the one place he knew he could find a bigfoot. Makes absolutely no sense.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I've never known what to make of the Morris story
It's one of the things that makes the PGF so interesting. Short of a smoking gun, the de-bunkers are dealing with the same challenges and shortcomings as the pro-paranormal/alien/cryptid crowd. Faulty or garbled memories, passage of time, people wanting to inject themselves into the story and so on. There are other claims about who made the costume and who wore it.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
There are other claims about who made the costume and who wore it.
I'm not really aware of other maker claimants. Morris Costumes being nearby (some of the Halloween stuff I overdo decorating with every year is made by them) when their name came up it stuck in my consciousness. But given the Ape Canyon story would mean multiple bigfootses, it may be that there were more than one suit, from more than one source. And either way shooting some test footage of how the suit looks on film would be standard practice.
 
Top