Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

Discussion of the 'peculiar' gait (raising the foot to vertical, 90° knee-bend angle among others) has been going on since the first viewing
that's how you walk in soft ground, or if you want to leave perfect deep footprints with unbroken edges

Looking at this, I also think the "head" is a hood with loose edges going down the back, hence no seams (and no neck).
 
What makes you think they didn't rehearse it, if it's a hoax?
What makes you think we know all the footage they shot, and not just the best bits?
This is from an analysis paper by Munns and Jeff Meldrum (https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries...-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf)

The PGF has been copied several times and by several methods, but the first set of copies made for Roger Patterson himself in 1967 (herein referred to as the PAC Group) were 1:1 contact prints and so any splice where the cellulose base is cut would print through a cut ine onto those copies. The author has examined every frame of several true contact prints, and there is no cut line anywhere in the contact print copy. This would be the single most conclusive indicator if the PGF camera original had been spliced before copying, and the indicator is absent. Therefore, it is conclusive that the original film had not been spliced before copying.

There are additional factors in evaluating the prospect that a film has been edited:

1. Absence of camera starts would be an indicator that the segment has been trimmed and early frames were deleted. PGF camera starts are intact. This factor does not support an argument for editing.
2. Lack of continuity of position of subject or camera would be an indicator of footage rearrangement, i.e. editing. However, continuity of the paths and positions of both film subject and camera operator are consistent with the event occurring as shown. This factor does not support any argument of editing.
3. Lack of continuity of shadows would indicate passages of time greater than the time the event is described to have occurred (within a minute or two in total), but there is no lack of continuity in the footage which would support any argument for film segments taken at different times with interruptions between in order to plan or choreograph the next filming segment before filming it. So there is no support for any argument of editing segments taken at different times of the day.
4. The light washout along the edge of the film is consistent with the last segment of a 100ft daylight load reel, and the subsequent unloading under low light (but not true darkroom blackness), indicating the PGF was the last segment of the 100ft roll. Copies of the entire first reel content, with the PGF as the last segment, account for almost 100ft and thus tend to support the entire content of the reel as described. No irregularities have been found to suggest the described and scanned complete first reel is edited.
The footage in question appearing at the end of an untampered with roll seems noteworthy since a fumbled first hoaxing attempt would not only have called for another go with the suit but also for a reshoot of all the scenes preceding it.
 
To think Bob H. could do that on the first take strains credulity.

Who are you arguing against here, I've seen no-one make that claim? If no-one's made it, you've turned bigfoot into a literal straw man.

However, if there was someone who made that claim who has now been frightened off from responding for some reason, I'll step in with his or her easiest response, and that's to highlight that you are performing a examplar of argument from incredulity.
 
that's how you walk in soft ground, or if you want to leave perfect deep footprints with unbroken edges

Looking at this, I also think the "head" is a hood with loose edges going down the back, hence no seams (and no neck).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI&t=4s


Check out the area of the right thigh/buttock in this version of the film. ( from 10-15 secs).

There is something very suspicious and unnatural where the animals fur 'creases' or folds', apparent as a line that comes and goes as it walks. If it was a hide attached to underlying tissues this movement would be impossible. However if it were a bloke in monkey suit...

(This version of the flm has an artist interpreting biomechanics (Bunk alarm). He refers to this 'line' but suggests it is from contact with it's hand as the arm swings. I fail to see any evolutionary advantage in removing weatherproofing to benefit gait, when it is so badly needed in the cold mountainous environment it supposedly inhabits. Perhaps this is why they are so elusive, an evolutionary dead end on it's way out.)
 
There is something very suspicious and unnatural where the animals fur 'creases' or folds', apparent as a line that comes and goes as it walks. If it was a hide attached to underlying tissues this movement would be impossible.
unfortunately as soon as someone messes with the film, we never really know if we are seeing something real or an artifact added by the enhancing software. this applies to creases or seams or alleged muscle movement.



By comparison, Shaq's foot is almost 18" (he wears a size 22). I once posted a pic of Shaq walking, and he walks just like everyone else: locked legs, foot makes about a 45° angle. So even in his size 22 shoes, he does not 'need' to mimic the walk of whatever is in the film
i just saw that doc like 3 days ago :) and his shoe wasnt 4 inches bigger than that print. The doc i saw the shaq shoes in, the long haired guy was playing drums int he woods to attract bigfoot. (a decent idea).

add: 1657725462745.png
21:49

add: show on Youtube too, called "Bigfoot Monster Mystery" (a professor also says the reason we hear bigfoot hoots and howls is because he's constipated :) )

either way... Shaq can walk normally in his feet because they are his feet. the same way you can walk normally in your feet.
His toes are at the end of his feet.
The gait problem arises when you buy shoes that are 4inches longer than your natural feet. Even shoes 1 inch longer than your feet in the toes causes you to trip if you walk normally, i know this because i used to be into vintage shoes but i'm a size 5 and most women have bigger feet, so i've bought shoes too big for me. and yes, you can't really wear them because no matter how careful you are the xtra toe lenghth makes you trip.
 
Last edited:
There is something very suspicious and unnatural where the animals fur 'creases' or folds', apparent as a line that comes and goes as it walks. If it was a hide attached to underlying tissues this movement would be impossible. However if it were a bloke in monkey suit...

I was thinking the same.. The ass looks also just a little bit too big, and it seems that during walking the butt looks rather unconnected to the legs/movement.. I just looks like a suit, we just cannot prove it.
 
The footage in question appearing at the end of an untampered with roll seems noteworthy since a fumbled first hoaxing attempt would not only have called for another go with the suit but also for a reshoot of all the scenes preceding it.
yea but the bigfoot footage is 25' and like 54 seconds, so they only filmed like 3 minutes of preceding stuff. i've never seen the first 75 feet of roll, but if its just them trapsing through the woods it wouldn't be so hard to reshoot 3 minutes, while bigfoot guy rested between takes.
 
either way... Shaq can walk normally in his feet because they are his feet. the same way you can walk normally in your feet.
His toes are at the end of his feet.
The gait problem arises when you buy shoes that are 4inches longer than your natural feet. Even shoes 1 inch longer than your feet in the toes causes you to trip if you walk normally, i know this because i used to be into vintage shoes but i'm a size 5 and most women have bigger feet, so i've bought shoes too big for me. and yes, you can't really wear them because no matter how careful you are the xtra toe lenghth makes you trip.

I agree.. I have to walk in cleanroom garments many times, and the over-shoes are usually too big and floppy. The walking becomes harder and you indeed have to walk around like Bozo the clown, to not trip over your own shoes..
 
unfortunately as soon as someone messes with the film, we never really know if we are seeing something real or an artifact added by the enhancing software. this applies to creases or seams or alleged muscle movement.




i just saw that doc like 3 days ago :) and his shoe wasnt 4 inches bigger than that print. The doc i saw the shaq shoes in, the long haired guy was playing drums int he woods to attract bigfoot. (a decent idea).

add: 1657725462745.png
21:49

add: show on Youtube too, called "Bigfoot Monster Mystery" (a professor also says the reason we hear bigfoot hoots and howls is because he's constipated :) )

either way... Shaq can walk normally in his feet because they are his feet. the same way you can walk normally in your feet.
His toes are at the end of his feet.
The gait problem arises when you buy shoes that are 4inches longer than your natural feet. Even shoes 1 inch longer than your feet in the toes causes you to trip if you walk normally, i know this because i used to be into vintage shoes but i'm a size 5 and most women have bigger feet, so i've bought shoes too big for me. and yes, you can't really wear them because no matter how careful you are the xtra toe lenghth makes you trip.
so you acknowledge that oversized shoes/slippers results in an 'unnatural' gait to compensate for the increased foot length? (as does the person who posted about wearing cleanroom garments). Such a scenario then implies that Bob H. could perform that walk perfectly for the duration of the film without 'tripping over your own shoes'. On the one-and-only take they did (he himself says that - I've never heard him mention practice sessions). The attach shows the knee-bend, foot raise situation that occurs. Do you see this configuration when people are walking? I dont. It will occur with very oversized clown feet (it was posted here long ago), but then you're back to the problem of risking tripping. Moving to the breast situation, what advantage was there for Patterson to include this nuance? Was he thinking that somehow adding breasts (shown very briefly in a few frames - had Bob H. forgot to do the infamous 'turn to the camera' it would all have been for naught) would strengthen the film's authenticity? Why would that be? In fact it greatly muddies the water, since academics like John Napier said it's clearly a male walk. So you have a male walk (therefore a male) with moving breasts. Patterson in trying to strengthen the situation blunders badly it would appear. Not to mention adding complexity to an already difficult one-shot situation. What if the prosthetic breasts had moved or fallen in the suit? Disaster, for no apparent gain. And lastly, the potential downside to adding breasts to the costume, for Bob H. I understand he's lived in Yakima most or all his life. If this had been quickly exposed as a hoax, he is then forever known in Yakima as the guy in the female Bigfoot suit. I dont know if I could live with the snickering ("Bob, not wearing your breasts today?").
 

Attachments

  • kneebend.png
    kneebend.png
    65.5 KB · Views: 116
On the one-and-only take they did (he himself says that - I've never heard him mention practice sessions).
him not mentioning practice sessions is not the same as "he himself says they only did it once". (and i'm.personally, not claiming he was in the suit.)

Such a scenario then implies that Bob H. could perform that walk perfectly for the duration of the film without 'tripping over your own shoes'.
what? i dont understand this statement. by "walk perfectly" do you mean "walk like the bigfoot int he film?"

Moving to the breast situation, what advantage was there for Patterson to include this nuance?
because it's the same as the picture in his book he published before the film. Ther is no practical advantage, maybe he just had a thing about fantasizing about females with big breasts in the woods.

I think it's a suit. i think the gait matches clown shoe walking. I think the breasts are in the wrong spot. I think the bottom of bigfoots feet look like the bottom of footie pajamas. I think it's far fetched that the film bigfoot looks IDENTICAL to the one he drew in his book from his own imagination.

I honestly don't care if you want to believe the film is real, but you're never gonna convince me otherwise. I'm old. I've made up my mind on the film a long time ago. :)
 
On the one-and-only take they did (he himself says that - I've never heard him mention practice sessions).
Do you believe that out in the woods was the first time Bob tried the suit on? What if it didn't fit?

Patterson in trying to strengthen the situation blunders badly it would appear.
Are you arguing that Patterson is perfect, and hence any would-be blunders are evidence he didn't do it? This can't be a reasonable argument, because it implies murderers never get caught if they don't want to be.

What if the prosthetic breasts had moved or fallen in the suit?
Maybe that's what happened!

academics like John Napier said it's clearly a male walk.
this argument is only valid if there is reason to believe Patterson thought about the difference between male and female gait before filming. I certainly wouldn't have.

I think the trouble with re-creating "the perfect bigfoot suit" is that we think of it as something that should be in one piece, and look good close up. For the distance and the purpose of the film, a brown boiler suit with patches of fur loosely attached, and a furry hood with some kind of face, would have sufficed just as well, in my estimation. Much of Hollywood film-making is deception, and experienced special effects people know how detailed their deception needs to be to be convincing, and not over-engineer.
 
maybe he just had a thing about fantasizing about females with big breasts in the woods.

Big, incredibly furry breasts at that. I'm still scarred from page 1.

I'd not really paid attention to the footage in detail before, as to me it was so obviously an adult male human in a suit - admittedly one with with proper fat man padding (top tip - if you're going to try to recreate this, at least talk to someone from the costumes department of any theatre) - I never got round to checking for boobage.
 
@jamesrav you really need to reconsider the structure of some of your arguments

rational thinking goes like this:
either
1) Everything in this film is plausible, therefore it's probably real.
or
2) Some things in this film are not plausible, therefore it's probably fake.


I think you propose
either
1) Everything in this film is plausible, therefore it's probably real.
or
2) Some things in this film are not plausible, but Patterson would not have done implausible things, therefore it's probably real.

This kind of argument is impossible to falsify, as it leaves no "probably fake" outcome. "If it was fake, we wouldn't see it's fake" is classic conspiracy thinking, as in "the fact that we don't have any evidence proves it's a government conspiracy, because only they could have covered it up". It reverses common logic, and should be encouragement to take a step back and reconsider.
 
Last edited:
I'd not really paid attention to the footage in detail before, as to me it was so obviously an adult male human in a suit - admittedly one with with proper fat man padding (top tip - if you're going to try to recreate this, at least talk to someone from the costumes department of any theatre) - I never got round to checking for boobage.
i didnt for years and years either. funny thing with bigfoot stories, is it's lot like flying saucers. people reporting breasts were all in a small group timeframe. and while i dont keep close tabs on bigfoot sightings, i do tend to watch any bigfoot doc or reality tv show (i like any film with people quietly walking around the woods before bed..it calms me) and i dont recall any witness in recent decades mention breasts.
 
so you acknowledge that oversized shoes/slippers results in an 'unnatural' gait to compensate for the increased foot length? (as does the person who posted about wearing cleanroom garments). Such a scenario then implies that Bob H. could perform that walk perfectly for the duration of the film without 'tripping over your own shoes'. On the one-and-only take they did (he himself says that - I've never heard him mention practice sessions). The attach shows the knee-bend, foot raise situation that occurs. Do you see this configuration when people are walking? I dont. It will occur with very oversized clown feet (it was posted here long ago), but then you're back to the problem of risking tripping. Moving to the breast situation, what advantage was there for Patterson to include this nuance? Was he thinking that somehow adding breasts (shown very briefly in a few frames - had Bob H. forgot to do the infamous 'turn to the camera' it would all have been for naught) would strengthen the film's authenticity? Why would that be? In fact it greatly muddies the water, since academics like John Napier said it's clearly a male walk. So you have a male walk (therefore a male) with moving breasts. Patterson in trying to strengthen the situation blunders badly it would appear. Not to mention adding complexity to an already difficult one-shot situation. What if the prosthetic breasts had moved or fallen in the suit? Disaster, for no apparent gain. And lastly, the potential downside to adding breasts to the costume, for Bob H. I understand he's lived in Yakima most or all his life. If this had been quickly exposed as a hoax, he is then forever known in Yakima as the guy in the female Bigfoot suit. I dont know if I could live with the snickering ("Bob, not wearing your breasts today?").

I watched the video (stabilised one from above here in the thread) and I see no 90 degree bend, but a much bigger (human) angle. I don't even think the suit had massive stompers.. So no need to argue about the shoes. Perhaps you can review that video and not that single (misleading) picture and drawn lines (incorrectly done btw).
 
Do you believe that out in the woods was the first time Bob tried the suit on? What if it didn't fit?


Are you arguing that Patterson is perfect, and hence any would-be blunders are evidence he didn't do it? This can't be a reasonable argument, because it implies murderers never get caught if they don't want to be.


Maybe that's what happened!


this argument is only valid if there is reason to believe Patterson thought about the difference between male and female gait before filming. I certainly wouldn't have.

I think the trouble with re-creating "the perfect bigfoot suit" is that we think of it as something that should be in one piece, and look good close up. For the distance and the purpose of the film, a brown boiler suit with patches of fur loosely attached, and a furry hood with some kind of face, would have sufficed just as well, in my estimation. Much of Hollywood film-making is deception, and experienced special effects people know how detailed their deception needs to be to be convincing, and not over-engineer.
So the breasts might actually have fallen? (never heard that opinion before) So Patterson probably didnt think thru the implications of having a male (Bob) wearing prosthetic breasts ? that sounds a lot like "what if?" arguing. Human males and females walk differently, I think most men discern that early in life. But Patterson forgot? 'The filmed subject will be deemed male by bio-mechanic experts based on the walk, yet I will add breasts anyway'. How can the ensuing conundrum help his case? One viewer, a noted English bio-mechanics professor, didnt even realize the subject had breasts. The merits (and demerits) of the film have been argued for 50 years, and at the academic level with considerable rigor (The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY papers online from Idaho State are one example). I doubt anything new will emerge in that regard thru additional study of the film. But the 'intangible' circumstances, although not evidence, should not be dismissed. There was nothing to be gained by adding breasts. It could only have negative repercussions: as regards the filming, a potential costume malfunction ; as regards expert analysis (and Patterson clamored for it to be viewed by experts), a 'problem' with a male walk on a subject having breasts. It was a lose-lose scenario, yet he did it anyway?
 
unfortunately as soon as someone messes with the film, we never really kn
unfortunately as soon as someone messes with the film, we never really know if we are seeing something real or an artifact added by the enhancing software. this applies to creases or seams or alleged muscle movement.




i just saw that doc like 3 days ago :) and his shoe wasnt 4 inches bigger than that print. The doc i saw the shaq shoes in, the long haired guy was playing drums int he woods to attract bigfoot. (a decent idea).

add: 1657725462745.png
21:49

add: show on Youtube too, called "Bigfoot Monster Mystery" (a professor also says the reason we hear bigfoot hoots and howls is because he's constipated :) )

either way... Shaq can walk normally in his feet because they are his feet. the same way you can walk normally in your feet.
His toes are at the end of his feet.
The gait problem arises when you buy shoes that are 4inches longer than your natural feet. Even shoes 1 inch longer than your feet in the toes causes you to trip if you walk normally, i know this because i used to be into vintage shoes but i'm a size 5 and most women have bigger feet, so i've bought shoes too big for me. and yes, you can't really wear them because no matter how careful you are the xtra toe lenghth makes you trip.

ow if we are seeing something real or an artifact added by the enhancing software. this applies to creases or seams or alleged muscle movement.




i just saw that doc like 3 days ago :) and his shoe wasnt 4 inches bigger than that print. The doc i saw the shaq shoes in, the long haired guy was playing drums int he woods to attract bigfoot. (a decent idea).

add: 1657725462745.png
21:49

add: show on Youtube too, called "Bigfoot Monster Mystery" (a professor also says the reason we hear bigfoot hoots and howls is because he's constipated :) )

either way... Shaq can walk normally in his feet because they are his feet. the same way you can walk normally in your feet.
His toes are at the end of his feet.
The gait problem arises when you buy shoes that are 4inches longer than your natural feet. Even shoes 1 inch longer than your feet in the toes causes you to trip if you walk normally, i know this because i used to be into vintage shoes but i'm a size 5 and most women have bigger feet, so i've bought shoes too big for me. and yes, you can't really wear them because no matter how careful you are the xtra toe lenghth makes you trip#

Of course, a bit of achoolboy error.
It wasn't the only source photo which showed something unusual in that area, but it appeared to show it 'more clearly' in that enlarged image. However, the nature of these images was not questioned at the time either.
I should know better.
 
Human males and females walk differently, I think most men discern that early in life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268003308002295
1-s2.0-S0268003308002295-gr1.jpg

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124580/
nihms298365f1.jpg

the average female gait falls well within the range of the male gait and vice versa; even more so when you adjust for body size, and possibly strength

yes, there are outliers, and yes, there are statistical differences, but I doubt they'll actually show in a monkey suit with oversized shoes
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268003308002295
1-s2.0-S0268003308002295-gr1.jpg

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124580/
nihms298365f1.jpg

the average female gait falls well within the range of the male gait and vice versa; even more so when you adjust for body size, and possibly strength

yes, there are outliers, and yes, there are statistical differences, but I doubt they'll actually show in a monkey suit with oversized shoes
I was referring more to walk 'style' than the numbers involved in walking. Napier said it was clearly a male walk, and I doubt he made any measurements to determine that. Whatever was filmed doesn't seem to have any female characteristics at all (other than the breasts), yet Patterson wanted to convince people it was female by including breasts. If he hoaxed the film, that decision backfired as relates to convincing the experts he wanted to impress - Napier might have been more sympathetic had it been purely male. But I too don't think the filmed subject was part of a breeding population of bipedal creatures somehow living undiscovered in the US. Frankly preposterous to me, yet Meldrum and a few others hold out hope. Faced with a binary choice of hoax / real animal there is no good option there (for me) based on the evidence. Anything beyond that gets into metaphysics, metareality, which understandably are considered metabunk here. :)
 
as relates to convincing the experts he wanted to impress
did he want to impress the experts?

can you actually BE an expert in how bigfoot females walk? is this expert claiming that i walk like a female gorilla?

do female gorillas walk differently than male gorillas?

Article:
The answer, I feel, lies with a fundamental problem with panels of experts, namely that you can’t be an expert in the unknown.
 
did he want to impress the experts?

can you actually BE an expert in how bigfoot females walk? is this expert claiming that i walk like a female gorilla?

do female gorillas walk differently than male gorillas?

Article:
The answer, I feel, lies with a fundamental problem with panels of experts, namely that you can’t be an expert in the unknown.
he did want to impress them , with their 'approval' its a goldmine. John Napier was a primatologist, so he'd know how primates moved. If he said it was clearly a male walk I'm sure he had his reasons. His opinion ranged from "clever hoax" to inconclusive. Does what John Mack said about UFO's (notably 'abductions' but perhaps his overall view of the phenomena) apply here as well? It seems to. Deride him for being gullible if you want, but he may have been onto something.

“It is as if the agent or intelligence here at work is parodying, daubing, hoaxing;
(and tricking investigators, providing them with just enough physical evidence to
convince those willing to believe in the reality of the phenomenon, but not enough
to persuade the skeptics
)” John Mack.
 
...leaves me completely impressed that this is no man walking in a suit for the first time.
This seems like a red herring. First, I'm seeing no evidence that it was
"the first time." Second, even if it was, so what?
One of the first viewers of the film, a Russian bio-mechanics expert, concluded that the walk is more efficient than a human walk.
Now I'm rarely one to question the conclusions of alleged anonymous "Russian bio-mechanics experts"...but I might, here. How can one determine that something is "more efficient than a human walk" from a few seconds of a figure walking
(instead of running [?] when it is supposedly in a big hurry to flee).
What does that even mean? After all this evolution, humans are lousy bipeds?

Like Mendel, I would've never thought that serious scientists would some day be analyzing the gait of my Bigfoot costume'd buddy for gender clues. I'm just hoping to make a quick buck. And since we have a history of precisely zero Bigfoots, the idea of attaching any weight to a declaration that it's definitely a "male" gait seems silly.

Yes, I initially saw a big male in a furry costume...but probably less because
of the gait, than that I'd just presumed that a large person was in it, and men
are usually the larger persons. When I first saw Chewbacca in 1977, I assumed
it was a big male in that Bigfoot costume, and yep, it was 7'3" Peter Mayhew.

I also agree with the poster who pointed out that it's a hell of lot easier
to create something, than to later duplicate it. While I am slightly intrigued
that some costume people have declared it to be pretty sophisticated,
I've always just seen a (probably deliberately) terrible image of a man
walking for a few seconds in an unimpressive ape (?) suit.
 
Just out of interest, don't the sides of the feet, or soles of the feet, look a little too bright/white?
For all I know most ape types have black feet/soles?


1.PNG2.PNG3.PNG
 
This seems like a red herring. First, I'm seeing no evidence that it was
"the first time." Second, even if it was, so what?

Now I'm rarely one to question the conclusions of alleged anonymous "Russian bio-mechanics experts"...but I might, here. How can one determine that something is "more efficient than a human walk" from a few seconds of a figure walking
(instead of running [?] when it is supposedly in a big hurry to flee).
What does that even mean? After all this evolution, humans are lousy bipeds?

Like Mendel, I would've never thought that serious scientists would some day be analyzing the gait of my Bigfoot costume'd buddy for gender clues. I'm just hoping to make a quick buck. And since we have a history of precisely zero Bigfoots, the idea of attaching any weight to a declaration that it's definitely a "male" gait seems silly.

Yes, I initially saw a big male in a furry costume...but probably less because
of the gait, than that I'd just presumed that a large person was in it, and men
are usually the larger persons. When I first saw Chewbacca in 1977, I assumed
it was a big male in that Bigfoot costume, and yep, it was 7'3" Peter Mayhew.

I also agree with the poster who pointed out that it's a hell of lot easier
to create something, than to later duplicate it. While I am slightly intrigued
that some costume people have declared it to be pretty sophisticated,
I've always just seen a (probably deliberately) terrible image of a man
walking for a few seconds in an unimpressive ape (?) suit.
The Russians Bayanov and Bourtsev were among the first to see the footage and analyze it as bio-mechanic experts. That really was the only analysis that could be made initially, there was no way to accurately gauge height or weight. But the walk - its right there in front of your eyes. I think bio-mechanics is an established field, certainly Olympic athletes take advantage of any improvement in efficiency. So I'm going to take their opinion that the gait was indeed 'more efficient' than a human gait as being grounded in science (I think it had to do with moving a mass of perhaps several hundred kilos in a very efficient manner). John Napier was a noted primatologist who was involved in studying the Homo Habilis fossils, so again, I have to trust his opinion that the walk was 'definitely male' (with breasts for some reason - either an unnecessary blunder by Patterson or some other explanation). Easier to create than duplicate? Tell that to the Chinese and Russians who copied everything the Americans had that was more advanced at the time (computers, planes to name a couple). The opinions on the suit as being "pretty sophisticated"? Disney said they could not do it, and the most famous ape-impersonator/actor Janos Prohaska said it could only be duplicated by directly gluing the fur to the person's body (would have taken 10 hours he said - I cant imagine anyone doing that, but thats what he said). He said if it was a suit it was "The Best" (and he emphasized those two words) he'd every seen.
 
I also agree with the poster who pointed out that it's a hell of lot easier
to create something, than to later duplicate it. While I am slightly intrigued
that some costume people have declared it to be pretty sophisticated,
I've always just seen a (probably deliberately) terrible image of a man
walking for a few seconds in an unimpressive ape (?) suit.

Me too, I just cannot get this picture out of my head of a slightly obese human in a suit, walking with big steps. I wonder as well if a wild animal (which it is) would slowly pace away from danger.. I think any animal would get the hell out of there as soon as possible (=running), or cant BF run?
 
So I'm going to take their opinion that the gait was indeed 'more efficient' than a human gait as being grounded in science (I think it had to do with moving a mass of perhaps several hundred kilos in a very efficient manner).
i wonder if its related to how joggers blow out their knees. perhaps the "kid sneaking up" stance is more efficient for a large creature, but i'm not sure how you determine a gait in a short distance over uneven sand by a guy in a thigh and butt padded suit.
back-view-of-two-kids-sneaking-by-decorated-house-while-trick-or-treating-on-halloween-copy-sp...jpg

Disney said they could not do it,
William Mann (costume designer) in 'When Roger Met Patty" (free with Kindle Unlimited on Amazon) said:


wrmp1.png

wrmp2.png
 
I wonder as well if a wild animal (which it is) would slowly pace away from danger.. I think any animal would get the hell out of there as soon as possible (=running), or cant BF run?
or a female (which it is). she didnt just walk nonchalantly, she completely turned her back to something chasing her. if true, she certainly has the balls to walk like a man.
 
I just can't understand how some people are amazed with the 'impossible to create in 1969 FXs' with this low res film. To me it looks like a pretty bog standard guy walking in a suit, havent people seen any of the 40s ape films? you dont see the zippers in those films either.
how is this more 'real' than eg lugosi's films, you can 'see' the muscles under those suits as well

I'm thinking its maybe because of all the horror film sub-genres 'big foot' has the lowest bar to clear, for laughs I looked at all the 'bigfoot' films I've rated on IMDB, excluding ape/yeti etc films
My average rating from all the 1000s of films Ive seen is ~6.1 so IMO bigfoot films are IMO just generally crap, though entertaining I will grant you
FWIW Night of the demon even though I rate it 2/10 is one of my 100 favorite films to watch

Abominable (2006) 7/10​

Creature from Black Lake (1976) 7/10​

Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie (2008) 5/10​

Demonwarp (1988) 5/10​

Bigfoot (2006 Video) 4/10​

The Capture of Bigfoot (1979) 4/10​

Yeti: Giant of the 20th Century (1977) 4/10​

The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) 3/10​

The Legend of Bigfoot (1975) 3/10​

Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot (1976) 3/10​

Return to Boggy Creek (1977) 3/10​

Night Claws (2012) 3/10​

Curse of Bigfoot (1975 TV Movie) 3/10​

Shriek of the Mutilated (1974) 2/10​

Willow Creek (2013) 2/10​

Untold (2002) 2/10​

Bigfoot (1970) 2/10​

Boggy Creek II: And the Legend Continues (1983) 2/10​

Night of the Demon (1980) 2/10​

The Geek (1971) 1/10​

Search for the Beast (1997) 1/10​


haha just looked up night of the demon, theres a new print of this classic
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2udnu2EDG8

Im not alone in appreciating this piece of cinema history :D
Hilarious they prolly spent more time on this restoration than the actual makers of the film in the first place, meanwhile a lot of 'real' classics sit moulding
 
or a female (which it is). she didnt just walk nonchalantly, she completely turned her back to something chasing her. if true, she certainly has the balls to walk like a man.
But she does look back at Patterson? The most famous frame is of her literally looking over her shoulder towards the camera. Which was the closest 'threat' at the time, Gimlin said he was 200 ft away at the time trying to stay on his horse and getting the gun out. 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.

Another instance of "experts" not being experts?
For a real expert on suits I'll bring up Munns again, who's worked in the field for a long time and seems convinced this couldn't have been faked.


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? It doesn't look anything like that to me and in my view the examples posted so far look utterly ridiculous in comparison.
I too think that the odds of this being a real creature are extremely unlikely but I also don't see anything in this video that would make me think it's faked. Which makes the flippant style of some replies here a little disappointing.
 
But she does look back at Patterson? The most famous frame is of her literally looking over her shoulder towards the camera. Which was the closest 'threat' at the time, Gimlin said he was 200 ft away at the time trying to stay on his horse and getting the gun out. 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.
Elephants get scared of small animals like mice... Your argument does not hold.
 
Elephants get scared of small animals like mice... Your argument does not hold.
So you're saying that elephants are scared of mice, so a Bigfoot would flee at the sight of a human? I can't follow that line of argument either.

BTW, all the videos I found of elephants and mice had the elephants slowly back up a few steps at best.



These guys here appear entirely unfazed
 
So you're saying that elephants are scared of mice, so a Bigfoot would flee at the sight of a human? I can't follow that line of argument either.

BTW, all the videos I found of elephants and mice had the elephants slowly back up a few steps at best.


These guys here appear entirely unfazed

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).

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).
 
Elephants get scared of small animals like mice... Your argument does not hold.
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.
 
Back
Top