Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

[jamesrav]

Depends. Gimlin was armed with a rifle and suggested in later years that it may have been possible that Patterson hoaxed him:

Patterson and Gimlin both denied that they had perpetrated a hoax, but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham for the BBC's The X Creatures, Gimlin said that for some time, "I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."[229]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#cite_note-40

If Bob H. is in on the hoax and an armed Gimlin is not, one could get nervous. And Patterson does appear to be the kind of guy that might try to fool his buddy for authenticity. After all of this, he never paid him his share.

And September through December is prime bear hunting time in California, even today. I wouldn't be surprised if the season was longer back in the '60s. Not sure I'd want to be running around the woods looking like a black bear for any length of time.


View attachment 52654

They had a lot to do in a compressed amount of time: Stating around 1:30, they film the creature, round up the horses, film the tracks, track the creature for 3 miles or so and return to the site, make the 9 mile round trip from site to camp to site back to camp and arrive in Willow Creek around 6:30 in a horse hauling truck.

you present the road situation well, I see that a lot of it was windy and they were hauling horses. But they were motivated since if not a hoax, they'd just filmed something nobody else ever had. Motivation goes a long way in upping speeds and wanting to get to point B.

I get the impression they were well off the beaten track (using horses after all - I've heard 30 miles from the nearest inhabited place), so Bob H. being fearful of being shot by another hunter in the 1 minute he's walking in the suit defies credulity. It's Bob H. padding an empty story with little tidbits to make it seem more believable, but does the opposite (same as saying that Roger told him to "walk like a gorilla", with the resulting walk being judged too human by the first viewing experts and "more efficient than a human" by the Russian bio-mechanics experts ; that means Bob H. failed miserably (although Bob H. pats himself on the back and says Roger said it was "perfect"). Bob H. also says in that documentary that he and Gimlin had an argument once Bob H. said he was going public with his confession, with Gimlin saying "I've lied this long so I'll have to keep lying". So Gimlin was in on the hoax according to Bob H. Therefore Bob H. was at no risk of being shot by Gimlin, according to Bob H. himself. Gimlin does offer up in his call with Packham that maybe Roger hoaxed it on his own, with Gimlin being an unwitting stooge. Now we have a 'Bigfoot triangle' - Bob H. says Gimlin was in on it, Gimlin says maybe Roger hoaxed him, which Packham of course jumps on (implying earlier that when Gimlin went to fix a horse shoe, Roger snuck out and set everything up for later). But Packham does not offer up the idea that Gimlin and Patterson were dual hoaxers, never implies it. Says Gimlin was a stooge. Nobody can create a valid hoax theory that doesn't contradict itself.
_________
"Know what really makes no sense? Believing an 8 to 9 ft tall monkey man that no one can ever find(except Patterson on his 1st try)is roaming the forests of North America." I agree with you on that, I dont think they exist as a physical 'real' animal. I can argue their non-existence quite well. What we are discussing is the PG film as a hoax, not their existence. To claim the PG film is a hoax because they simply "cannot" exist (case closed) is side-stepping the topic. It's as I have stated: the extreme bias against Bigfoot existing as an animal means that the film must be a hoax, no 'proof' needed therefore.

 

[Mauro]

I agree with you on that, I dont think they exist as a physical 'real' animal. I can argue their non-existence quite well. What we are discussing is the PG film as a hoax, not their existence. To claim the PG film is a hoax because they simply "cannot" exist (case closed) is side-stepping the topic. It's as I have stated: the extreme bias against Bigfoot existing as an animal means that the film must be a hoax, no 'proof' needed therefore.

I don't understand the logic. If Bigfoot does not exist, and a film showing a Bigfoot comes up, I can only think of these possibilities:

1) Bigfoot, after all, exists. But you agree Bigfoot doesn't, so this is not the right answer.
2) Then: the film shows something else.

2a) That 'something else' is a genuine phenomenon which by chance looks on film like the very Bigfoot they were out to find.

• 2a1) It's a mundane phenomenon. Say a gorilla escaped from somewhere (can't think of much else). Contradicted, in the case of the gorilla, by the anatomically wrong position of the breasts, among others. Not the right answer.
• 2a2) It's a non-mundane phenomenon. Say (taking the lead from your sentence above) an 'unphysical' animal. But fantasy is the only limit here, from ape-like aliens to ectoplasmic condensations to anything, except a Bigfoot, excluded by mutual agreement at step number 1.

2b) Or: that 'something else' is not genuine, the film has been staged/doctored/faked (hoax)

So we're left with a 'non-mundane object, except a Bigfoot' or 'hoax' as possible answers to what the film actually showed. Choose one.

 

[jamesrav]

I don't understand the logic. If Bigfoot does not exist, and a film showing a Bigfoot comes up, I can only think of these possibilities:

1) Bigfoot, after all, exists. But you agree Bigfoot doesn't, so this is not the right answer.
2) Or: the film shows something else.

2a) That 'something else' is a genuine phenomenon which by chance shows up as a Bigfoot is supposed to show on a film.

• 2a1) It's a mundane phenomenon, by chanche resembling the Bigfoot they were out to find. Say a gorilla escaped from somewhere (can't think of much else). Contradicted, in the case of the gorilla, by the anatomically wrong position of the breasts (and more). Not the right answer.
• 2a2) It's a non-mundane phenomenon, say (taking the lead from your sentence above) an 'unphysical' animal. But fantasy is the only limit here, from ape-like aliens to ectoplasmic condensations to anything, except a Bigfoot, excluded by mutual agreement at step number 1.

2b) Or: that 'something else' is not genuine: the film has been staged/doctored/faked (hoax)

So we're left with a 'non-mundane object, except a Bigfoot' or 'hoax' as possible answers to what the film actually showed. Choose one.

I'm a 2a2 believer. I put up a poll recently on reddit asking "What is Bigfoot" (real or un-real) so I should have the results in a few days. Some people have said 'both' which shows the confusion in play here. I was not aware 'mundane' had the secondary meaning it does, so along with "terrestrial" and "earthly" I think it's a good alternative to the argument-enders such as Supernatural and Paranormal.
I think a side-by-side showing the Pro and Con arguments for the film would be useful, so I may do it. After studying the topic for many years (and having learned a lot of new info recently by watching some of the videos on Sasquatch Archives and reading some of the papers at the Idaho State 'Relict Hominid' website), its somewhat surprising to me that people of a scientific bent (like those reading metabunk) can be so against the film on its merits, rather than the subject matter itself. They can be separated, but people choose not to do so. The top Con argument against the film being 'not a hoax' is of course in big bold lettering (perhaps opaque though) "Bigfoot cannot exist". The rest of the arguments fall apart with a little probing. When the Bob H. story came out it seemed to spell the end of the PG film, I'm sure believers were more than a little worried before getting their hands on a copy. Yet it turned out to be unsubstantiated hearsay contradicted at every juncture: two very different suits somehow in the mix - we only need one, more is not 'better' for the argument ; somehow a $500 off the shelf gorilla suit has fooled everyone for 50+ years, yet we all acknowledge such suits are quite obviously fake ; Bob H. did not know how to get to the film site yet was clearly there if he was in the suit ; Bob H. is "nervous as hell" that he'd be shot by a random hunter who just happened to be out hunting bears in the 1 minute he was in the suit. The rest of the hoax argument is mostly "Roger was a bad person" so therefore it was a hoax. The physics/bio-mechanics is not expressly challenged. Quite the contrary, the Pro crowd has used the science to bolster their points. The most 'scientific' point about the gait being possible by a person is "people wearing clown shoes often have to high-step" (and apparently not so, somebody posted a video of a parade of clowns and nobody was high-stepping). A potential travel-time discrepancy posted here (in nice detail) lead to nothing conclusive, certainly no "gotcha" that would have left Roger without an answer for. Attempts to find costume artifacts on the film (seams, zipper, clasp, etc) have failed - the one supposed 'finding' of a little object turned out to be well beyond the resolution of the film grain. Which was pointed out in scientific detail by a film supporter. So not surprising, all the science about the film has come from the Pro side. What is the strongest scientific statement about the film that leads one to say "hoax"? Saying its of poor quality, and that hinders us from finding the zipper is making excuses. I like Michael Shermer's quip about the woo crowd trying to prove something from anecdotal evidence: "combining a hundred cups of weak coffee does not make a pot of strong coffee". And yet that's what the 'hoax' crowd has been doing for 50 years.

 

[Mauro]

I'm a 2a2 believer.

I'm glad your position on the matter has been clarified: you believe Patterson's film documents a non-mundane, non-Bigfoot 'something'.

When you come up with an hypothesis about what that 'something' could possibly have been we'll be happy to discuss its merits, comparing it to the hoax hypothesis on the base of the evidence presented.

 

[deirdre]

The top Con argument against the film being 'not a hoax' is of course in big bold lettering (perhaps opaque though) "Bigfoot cannot exist". The rest of the arguments fall apart with a little probing.

you keep misrepresenting the people in this thread. that's not cool.

its somewhat surprising to me that people of a scientific bent (like those reading metabunk) can be so against the film on its merits,

there are no merits that are useful. As previously said, the film is too blurry for either side to use the film itself as part of their argument.

 

[jamesrav]

not sure why it's my obligation to present a hypothesis, that's not what the thread is about. If I started a thread on what the PG film might show, then I need to present evidence - which I cannot of course. If you (or anyone) can solidly disprove the PG film, then it can be retired from consideration. But it's the Shermer situation in reverse, the jumbled attempts often contradict each other, yet somehow each tidbit is meant to further the argument that its a hoax. The most serious attempt involves Bob H. , yet his recollections contradict other people trying to prove a hoax. As Packham says: if the PG film goes, so goes Bigfoot. Likewise, if Bob H. proves to be a poor 'spoiler' , so goes the hoax idea. // "too blurry" has nothing to go with the gait and other aspects. In the BBC documentary, the special effects guy opined that it was a suit, and said how he'd do it ... in 1998. Completely irrelevant to the situation in 1967. He brought up John Chambers (Planet of the Apes), who later denied to Bobbie Short that he was in any way involved (I don't believe that was audio-taped, so it's hearsay admittedly - I need to see if Sasquatch Archives has any info on that topic). Supposedly Chambers said "I'm good, but not that good", but again, hearsay, and he's now deceased. There's just no strong piece of evidence for a hoax, if there was I'd try my best to discredit it. But if I could not, I would accept it.

 

[deirdre]

As Packham says: if the PG film goes, so goes Bigfoot. Likewise, if Bob H. proves to be a poor 'spoiler' , so goes the hoax idea.

neither of those statements are correct.

 

[jamesrav]

neither of those statements are correct.

so belief in Bigfoot could survive if Gimlin confessed tomorrow? Maybe I should put a poll up on reddit for that next, because I think most believers in Bigfoot think the film is the best evidence by far. The footprints have much less credibility since they can be faked by almost anyone, with zero budget. And the rest is eyewitness sightings which are dependent on the person. And If Bob H. confesses tomorrow? Says he was not the person in the suit ; then the hoax idea really is on tenuous ground, since no other credible alternative has been put forth. The Jerry Romney accusation in Fox's Tv show (which pre-dated Bob H. by several years and must have really irked him, since after all, he was the person in the suit. Yet he kept quiet and did not come forth for several more years. Think about that for a second: a highly rated show steals your thunder, not only didnt you get paid as promised, now an 'imposter' gets the glory. And yet Bob H. remains stoic ... right up until he goes into full hoax mode ).

 

[deirdre]

so belief in Bigfoot could survive if Gimlin confessed tomorrow?

? of course.
ask your bigfoot poll "If Patterson's wife put the bigfoot suit on ebay to pay her property taxes, would that make you stop believing in bigfoot?"

The footprints have much less credibility since they can be faked by almost anyone, with zero budget.

i thought the "experts" say that some would be almost impossible to fake.
out of the 100+ bigfoot docs and shows i've seen, i must have missed the one where the experts agree almost anyone can make them on zero budget.

Says he was not the person in the suit ; then the hoax idea really is on tenuous ground, since no other credible alternative has been put forth.

how's this for a credible alternative: it was a different guy in the suit.


Regarding all these strange absolutes you are stating... are you funning with me?

 

[jamesrav]

? of course.
ask your bigfoot poll "If Patterson's wife put the bigfoot suit on ebay to pay her property taxes, would that make you stop believing in bigfoot?"


i thought the "experts" say that some would be almost impossible to fake.
out of the 100+ bigfoot docs and shows i've seen, i must have missed the one where the experts agree almost anyone can make them on zero budget.


how's this for a credible alternative: it was a different guy in the suit.


Regarding all these strange absolutes you are stating... are you funning with me?

point #2: the footprints have been a contentious issue among believers forever. Meldrum has been fooled, some say Krantz as well. And of course they are viewed as almost useless by the skeptics.

point #3: "a different guy in the suit". I look forward to that future reveal. First Clyde Reinke accuses Jerry Romney on Fox's show, and then 8 years later Bob H. confesses he was in the suit. Romney denied it (and walked nothing like the filmed subject) and Bob H.'s problems have been brought forth by me. But no matter, the 'the real person in the suit' will eventually fess up.

I like a takedown as much as anyone, when Carson (via Randi's help) exposed Geller on The Tonight Show in front of millions, it was priceless. When Randi exposed Hydrick via a simple test, I felt embarrassed for the guy. The Peter Popoff scam was another. The Shroud of Turin explanation by Nickell and eventual dating ended all discussion (or should have). What Mick West does here regarding UFO's is beyond admirable, he gets no credit (deemed a party-pooper for actually applying math and optics). Yet the PG film has endured all attempts, and can only be attacked by a weak circumstantial case against. If there were no breasts on the subject, if it did not walk with an "inhuman" compliant gait, if Patterson was caught in a lie about his actions after filming, and of course if a corresponding suit was revealed, it would just be 'another hoax'. Instead the film has a small army of supporters (some bona fide academics like Krantz and Meldrum) who have done the research, digitally scanned every frame, and conclude - using the same tools that Mick West does - that it depicts something non-human.

 

[deirdre]

I look forward to that future reveal.

I wouldnt hold your breath. I still want to know who Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were, but we can't always get answers to everything we want.

Instead the film has a small army of supporters (some bona fide academics like Krantz and Meldrum) who have done the research,

yea, so did (does?) the cottingly fairies, and Nessie of course is still the Queen bee in cryptoids.

The Champ photos can't be conclusively proven to be a log or beavers either, because the photo is too blurry.

at least the Chupracabra has some clear video footage to look at. (and he doesnt at all look like a man in a suit).

I'm not mocking you, I'm glad you believe Patterson's film is real from alleged muscles and gait.. that was the whole point in making the film. Humans get all weird when they don't have fantastical things to keep their minds off the monotony of life. (and here's where the science geeks say the cosmos and atoms and sundogs are interesting enough... but not all of us are keen on those types of fantastical things)

 

[jamesrav]

I wouldnt hold your breath. I still want to know who Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac were, but we can't always get answers to everything we want.



yea, so did (does?) the cottingly fairies, and Nessie of course is still the Queen bee in cryptoids.

The Champ photos can't be conclusively proven to be a log or beavers either, because the photo is too blurry.

at least the Chupracabra has some clear video footage to look at. (and he doesnt at all look like a man in a suit).

I'm not mocking you, I'm glad you believe Patterson's film is real from alleged muscles and gait.. that was the whole point in making the film. Humans get all weird when they don't have fantastical things to keep their minds off the monotony of life. (and here's where the science geeks say the cosmos and atoms and sundogs are interesting enough... but not all of us are keen on those types of fantastical things)

I think I'm a bit more crypto-zoo than you, Nessie has long since faded away due to the research of prior supporters (or at least open minded) like Shine and Raynor. The day I saw the Dinsdale film for what it really was, a boat with a very prominent shining medallion at the front, was a sad day for me. I really thought Dinsdale had something biological on film, but not to be. The Rines debacle with early photoshop-type 'enhancing' was just another nail in the coffin. Nessie is the product of British tabloids pure and simple. I hope you're jesting about the fairies, that Conan Doyle believed they were real was a function of the times, and he was hardly an expert on photo fakery. Chupacabra has a neat name but nothing else. No, there's only one, and its got big feet.

 

[deirdre]

The day I saw the Dinsdale film for what it really was, a boat with a very prominent shining medallion at the front, was a sad day for me.

The day you finally see the Patterson film for what it is, a guy in a suit, will be a sad day for you too.

 

[Ravi]

Just for my understanding.. Is there any more footage from BF at all? I cannot find any.
This alone tells me it is all BF BS.

EDIT
Ok was a bit lazy, but now I found the Freeman footage.. Opinion not changed though.

 

[jamesrav]

The day you finally see the Patterson film for what it is, a guy in a suit, will be a sad day for you too.

the big difference is the open-minded skeptics (who were actually fairly 'pro-ish' when it came to there being some phenomena in Loch Ness) put in the effort to analyze the 'blurry' film and actually came up with something, albeit bad. Credit where credit is due. The PG film is of much higher quality than the Dinsdale film was. And the Dinsdale film had no 'hoax' element to it, so it was a case of 'show it to be a boat or accept it's biological' (which as you probably know was the initial verdict of a military branch that analyzed the film). That's how the case remained for 30 or 40 years, until someone had the idea of adjusting the contrast ... the rest is (sad) history for Nessie believers. The PG film offered so much more to the skeptics to work with, yet they came up empty. I say "offered" because it's now over, it's done at this point. Unless Gimlin or the 'real' person in the suit finally confesses and gives a plausible back story (as opposed to Bob H), the non-hoax contingent wins by forfeit. // The Freeman footage is deemed 'runner up' to the PG film in terms of importance. Paul Freeman has his detractors as well, so its deemed questionable. It gets a big 'meh' from me. If Bigfoot is not a real animal, then having one examinable piece of footage was very generous by whatever is responsible

 

[Mauro]

the big difference is the open-minded skeptics..

The "open-minded skeptic" is a trope which really has made its time, a classic 'point refuted a thousand times'. Please...

Every skeptic is open minded by definition: give me enough evidence and I will believe what you say even if it sounds absurd. Think of this: I believe the length of objects is not constant, rather, the faster they move the shorter they become. Isn't this absurd? Nonetheless, Einstein gave me abundant evidence this is true, so I believe it notwithstanding my (very well founded, after all) initial skepticism.

So: give me enough evidence of which kind of non-mundane, non-Bigfoot 'something' is documented by the Patterson's film and I will gladly say 'Oh gosh, he's reason!!!', just as I said when I realized why the length of an object, in fact, does change with its speed. Until that wow moment, I'll go on thinking Patterson's film is just a blatant fake.

PS.: @deirdre expressed some of the same thoughts previously (about fantastical things being found more probably in science than in woods), in a different form.

 

[JMartJr]

The PG film offered so much more to the skeptics to work with, yet they came up empty.

I have to ask at this point, are you reading this thread?

 

[jamesrav]

reading it? I'm also providing most everything of substance. The only really substantive post was about the travel time - had it uncovered an apparent impossibility there would have been something novel to discuss. It ended with an admission that the times involved , although tight, were certainly possible. I have posted many of the video clips, showing inconsistencies in the testimony of Bob H. , among other things. I think I'm quite well versed on the PG film. Nothing novel has been posted here, nothing that has not been discussed for the past 20 years on Bigfoot Forums or even among the comment section of YT videos. Mick West's work debunking UFO videos via math, physics, and optics should be the model here for debunking the film. I guess I hijacked the foregone conclusion of the thread and that has rubbed people the wrong way.

your own statement earlier: "It is always possible that Morris sold them a suit, but it is not the one seen in the film" goes against the accepted hoax explanation, that being a well-known costume designer sold Roger a suit for $500 (no receipt ever offered up for that) and that suit was 'modified' and that's what we see. The red horse hide suit has always been a sidebar, since the suit in the film is not red (dyed? that would be a novel twist), so now you are proposing Roger disregarded the Morris suit after all and went another (suit) route, as yet totally unknown? You're offering up new unknowns as 'evidence', they are merely conjectures. This is what Morris directly has said, quote:

"I called my wife from the other room and said, 'Look it's our gorilla costume.'" (meaning their off-the-shelf $500 costume)

"He asked me to send him some extra fur and asked how to hide the zipper in the back and how to make the person in the costume look larger," Morris said. "I told him to brush the fur over the zipper and use hair spray to hold it, and then get some football shoulder pads and sticks for the arms to give the illusion of being taller, and use stuffing to get more bulk."

sticks for the arms? the most analyzed footage in history after the Zapruder film, and extensive analysis has somehow missed that there are "sticks" in there. I dont know what to say. Since the thread was started by a hoax-believer, its only fair its ends that way, so any further reply will end this.

 

[NorCal Dave]

its somewhat surprising to me that people of a scientific bent (like those reading metabunk) can be so against the film on its merits, rather than the subject matter itself. They can be separated, but people choose not to do so.

This is essence the argument I think @Easy Muffin was making, summed up in post #124:

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

We can all just look at the film and ignore all context and come up with our own conclusions. But as has been stated already, if we just watch the film, it's mostly inconclusive. It's a blurry few minutes of "something" walking through the forest.

It functions like a Roarshack test: If you believe in Bigfoot, you see it as real film of Bigfoot, if you don't think Bigfoot is a physical reality, you see it as some kind of hoax. Some think it's a painfully obvious hoax, some like me, think it's likely a hoax, but can't provide a smoking gun to prove that. You seem to be suggesting that it's something in between, not a hoax but not a real creature either, if I'm understanding you. Not sure what that means.

The top Con argument against the film being 'not a hoax' is of course in big bold lettering (perhaps opaque though) "Bigfoot cannot exist".

Not exactly, more accurately, there has to date, not been any form of definitive evidence for a large bipedal hominin roaming North America in sufficient number to maintain a healthy breeding population.

This film is inconclusive at best, and beyond it we only have some footprints, some reported sounds and reported sightings along with known hoaxes.

No body, skeleton, remains or fossils has ever been found. I am not aware of any DNA evidence that has stood up to scrutiny, including Melba Ketchum's:

Clearly, the DNA that was sequenced came from a mix of sources, some human, some from other animals you might find in the North American woodlands. (Recently, a researcher who was given a sample of the DNA by Ketchum announced that it was a mix of "opossum and other species," consistent with this analysis.) Clearly, there was human DNA present, but it was either degraded or present in relatively low amounts.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

Something you seem to confirm:

The footprints have much less credibility since they can be faked by almost anyone, with zero budget. And the rest is eyewitness sightings which are dependent on the person.

So if there is no other evidence for a bipedil ape-like creature in North America, one has to ask what's on the film?

One problem is, all we have is copies of the original, some old interviews of Patterson along Gimlin and maybe Heronemus, recollecting things from 20-40 years ago. So, if just watching the film leaves one with inconclusive, one is going to move beyond just what's in the film to gain some incite, which is exactly what the proponents of the film did by studying what they could. And its what non-proponents do, studying what they can.

Nevertheless, we can concentrate on the film.

So not surprising, all the science about the film has come from the Pro side.

That's partly because they have so much more invested in it. If you want to believe in Bigfoot, like Grover Krantz, then this film and his "club-foot" tracks are the best he has, so he's going to spend a lot of time looking at every frame over and over, unlike the skeptics:

As anthropologist David Daegling writes, "[t]he skeptics have not felt compelled to offer much of a detailed argument against the film; the burden of proof, rightly enough, should lie with the advocates." Yet, without a detailed argument against authenticity, Daegling notes that "the film has not gone away."[172]

Then once all of this "science" by the pro crowd is applied to the film itself, what are we left with? A few negatives, like we can't see a zipper or seams and it walks funny. As Munns and Meldrum show in their paper, the seams and zippers, if they were ever visible, are probably beyond the resolution of the original, let alone the copies we are left with.

So, it would appear that, when we disregard all exterior context, the voracity of the film is based largely on the creature's unusual gait, with the biggest proponent being Krantz. But, in the video you posted, after showing everything that's weird in the gait, he proceeds to do it just fine for 30', as noted by the host.

As for the Soviets, I'm not sure what Bayanov is, a teacher of some kind? He also believes the many parts of the world are filled with living relic hominins, including Bigfoot, the Yeti and Alms, for which, little to no evidence exists:

For leading Russian cryptozoologist and hominologist, Dmitri Bayanov, Bigfoot is not a belief but a fact. He represents the Russian perspective, based on all of the evidence investigators have gathered on cryptid primates, that Sasquatch, Yeti, and Almas are relict hominids, relatives of Homo sapiens. For Bayanov and other Russian hominologists, the existence of these primates is real, not merely theory and folk tales.

Bayanov believes that the discovery of relict hominids is a rediscovery of the creatures known in the 18th century as Homo troglodytes and Homo sylvestris. He asserts that hominoid legends have basis in fact and scientists cannot avoid investigating for fear that a Bigfoot discovery would overturn theories of evolution and anthropology.

A graduate of a Russian teachers college, Bayanov originated the term "hominology" in the 1970s. He was among the researchers who studied the Patterson/Gimlin film and found it authentic.

Bayanov joined the Relict Humanoid Research Seminar at the Darwin Museum in 1964 and became its Chairman in 1975. He is a founding board member of the International Society of Cryptozoology.
.

http://www.thebigfootportal.com/dmitri-bayanov/

Dr. Donsky was the Chief of the Bio Mechanics Dept. at a Soviet institution. Soviet science always worked for the good of the ruling Marxist/Communist party, but they were big into relict humans. The gist of his paper seems to be that the creature is very heavy and that accounts for the way it walks (bold in the original):

The strides are energetic and big, with the leg swung far forward. When man extends the leg that far he walks very fast and thus overcomes by momentum the "braking effect" of the virtual prop that is provided by the forward leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed, so the more massive the biped the less speed (and vice versa) is needed to overcome the braking effect of the leading leg in striding.

The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong.

After each heel strike the creature's leg bends, taking on the full weight of the body and smoothing over the impact of the step, acting as a shock-absorber.

In a normal human walk such considerable knee flexion as is exhibited by the film creature is not observed; it is practiced only in cross-country skiing. This characteristic makes one think that the creature is very heavy and its toe-off is powerful, which would contribute to rapid progression.

In the toe-off phase the sole of the creature's foot is visible. By human standards it is large for the height of the creature. No longitudinal arch typical of the human foot is in view. The hind part of the foot formed by the heel bone protrudes considerably back. Such proportions and anatomy facilitate the work of the muscles, which make standing postures possible and increase the force of propulsion in walking. Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature. **

**The above emphasis was Rene Dahinden's...compare this statement with the findings of anthropologists Grover Krantz and of the two Russians, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev in Chapter 9 of Dahinden's book, "Sasquatch" in the 1993 revised edition. Each of these three sources arrived at the same conclusion totally independent of the others.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

So how big is it? Krantz thought about 6' 6":

Patterson initially estimated its height at 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m) to 7 feet (2.1 m),[44] and later raised his estimate to about 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about 1 foot (0.30 m) too tall. Gimlin's estimate was 6 feet (1.8 m).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film
So, it must be very dense.

The idea that it is "more efficient" than a normal human gait is just sort of hinted at (bold by me):

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of the two-footed creature in the Patterson film and detailed examination of the successive stills from it, one is left with the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion, with all the particular movements combined in an integral whole that presents a smoothly operating and coherent system.

Or is a result of the creature's apparent speed (bold by me):

Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.

Note also that here he is saying the walk is, "in principle the gait of modern man", though he later says it's not typical:

At the same time, despite the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as is demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

The physics/bio-mechanics is not expressly challenged.

Not so. Doubters have looked at it and come up with different conclusions.

As regards Donskoy's idea that the creature was swift, John Napiar observed that some of the strangeness of the walk is a result of the odd film speed used:

John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[163]

http://www.thebigfootportal.com/dmitri-bayanov/

Both Krantz and Dahinden reasoned that the encounter was filmed at ~18fps:

• On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."[166]
• René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."[167] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."[167]

So, the film speed alone could help account for some of the unusual gait.

Other anthropologists and Bigfooters looked at the film and came to different conclusions than Krantz, or were at least much less enthusiastic:

Bernard Heuvelmans—a zoologist and the so-called "father of cryptozoology"—thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human.[175][176][177] He objected to the film subject's hair-flow pattern as being too uniform; to the hair on the breasts as not being like a primate; to its buttocks as being insufficiently separated; and to its too-calm retreat from the pursuing men.

Napier conceded the likelihood of Bigfoot as a real creature, stating, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists."[178] But he argued against the film being genuine: "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis."[179] Napier gives several reasons for his and other's skepticism[180] that are commonly raised, but apparently his main reasons are original with him. First, the length of "the footprints are totally at variance with its calculated height".[181] Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.[182] (In response, Barbara Wasson criticized Napier's logic at length.)[183]

Esteban Sarmiento is a specialist in physical anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. He has 25 years of experience with great apes in the wild. He writes,[185] "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."[186] His most original criticism is this: "The plantar surface of the feet is decidedly pale, but the palm of the hand seems to be dark. There is no mammal I know of in which the plantar sole differs so drastically in color from the palm."[187] His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."[188] "Body proportions: ... In all of the above relative values, bigfoot is well within the human range and differs markedly from any living ape and from the 'australopithecine' fossils."[189] (E.g., the IM index is in the normal human range.) And: "I estimate bigfoot's weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs [85 and 110 kg]."[190]

When anthropologists David J. Daegling of the University of Florida and Daniel O. Schmitt examined the film, they concluded it was impossible to conclusively determine if the subject in the film is nonhuman, and additionally argued that flaws in the studies by Krantz and others invalidated their claims. Daegling and Schmitt noted problems of uncertainties in the subject and camera positions, camera movement, poor image quality, and artifacts of the subject. They concluded: "Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence."[191]

Daegling has asserted that the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"]."[192]

Jessica Rose and James Gamble are authors of "the definitive text on human gait",[194] Human Walking. They operate the Motion and Gait Analysis Lab at Stanford University. They conducted a high-tech human-replication attempt of "Patty's" gait, in cooperation with Jeff Meldrum. Rose was certain their subject had matched Patty's gait, while Gamble was not quite as sure. Meldrum was impressed and acknowledged that "some aspects" of the creature's walk had been replicated, but not all. The narrator said, "even the experts can see the gait test could not replicate all parameters of the gait." It was shown in an episode of the Discovery Channel's Best Evidence series.[195]

I guess the big difference is that upon thinking it likely a hoax, they did not pursue it further, unlike Krantz and others.

But in the end, and dealing with just the film itself, we have some proponents of the film and some detractors, so we pick who we want beleive.

Discussing Heronemus' story is similar to tackling the timeline, they are contextual red flags for either side of the argument.

Since the thread was started by a hoax-believer, its only fair its ends that way, so any further reply will end this.

I just saw this as I was ready to post.

Actually if you had spent any time on the forum outside of this thread, you would find that johnie1618 is one of our least skeptical members when it comes to the paranormal, UFOs, criptyds and the like. I got that he was surprised to see it might have been a hoax.

Your explanation for the PG film seems to be that it could not have possibly been hoaxed and yet its very likely that there are no Bigfoot like creatures in any real sense of the word, an actual species with a sufficient breeding population. You seemed to posit that this is maybe some proof of a "glitch in the Matrix" type scenario if I understood you right.

That's going to be a hard sell around here, so in essence saying your going to pick up your ball and leave the playground because people don't agree with you doesn't seem a way to further the conversation.

For what it's worth, I was having fun.

 

[jamesrav]

finally a good, substantive post. The final post will therefore have to come after this post. A lot to digest, but this certainly seems very relevant to my doubts on the "inhuman" gait question:

"Rose was certain their subject had matched Patty's gait, while Gamble was not quite as sure. Meldrum was impressed and acknowledged that "some aspects" of the creature's walk had been replicated, but not all. The narrator said, "even the experts can see the gait test could not replicate all parameters of the gait." I assume the narrator is referencing Meldrum and Gamble vs. Rose.

so how is that not a big deal in several respects? Bob H. apparently did perform this gait (even though he was expressly told to "walk like a gorilla", whatever that means). I think I've seen that documentary, they had to teach the fellow how to mimic the gait. It took practice, much verbal input. Still could not replicate all parameters. This would be considered 'best attempt', with huge advantages over the real situation, and yet could not replicate all parameters. An 85 or 90% 'success' here is actually a failure, isnt it? 'Close' does not count. A 90% replication of an airplane is not a good thing. The subject came close, so lets give it to him? I think that violates some tenets of science.

Bob H. has made much of the fact that he walks like the film subject. And admittedly he does share some of the style.(I've seen it). He certainly does not achieve the angles observed, nor the extreme high-stepping, but he's closer than someone picked off the street. But is that the result of subsequent (post 2005) practice, or has he always walked that way? I bet he's practiced a little to mimic it, dont you think? Since the experts showed it could be (mostly) mimicked with practice, maybe he's an example of that. Going back to Bob H. once again, which is it: he naturally walks like the subject (which he says) or he was following Roger's orders to walk like a gorilla (which he also says). Cannot be both, unless Bob H. is admitting he walks naturally like a gorilla.

 

[JMartJr]

Or is a result of the creature's apparent speed (bold by me):

Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man. Content from External Source

Worth noting that the speed is going to be indeterminate since the frames per second setting on the camera is not certain.
The brief section in the Wikipedia article on the PG film is probably worth reproducing in full:

One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps). ... "[160][161] It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".

• "Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real".[162]
• John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[163] Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz,[164] contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."[163][165]
• Krantz argued, on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known (5 ft 2 in or 5 ft 3 in [157 or 160 cm]), a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."[166]
• René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."[167] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."[167]
• Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. ... I have nine K-100 cameras now. ... I tried it on one camera, and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

 

[deirdre]

Nothing novel has been posted here, nothing that has not been discussed for the past 20 years on Bigfoot Forums or even among the comment section of YT videos. Mick West's work debunking UFO videos via math, physics, and optics should be the model here for debunking the film

um.. the film is over 50 years old. HOW can anything novel be discussed? I havent heard you utter anything novel either; supernatural bigfoot is in dozens and dozens of tv "reality" shows already. Been there, done that. How about YOU come up with something novel and we can discuss it.

It took practice, much verbal input. Still could not replicate all parameters. This would be considered 'best attempt', with huge advantages over the real situation, and yet could not replicate all parameters. An 85 or 90% 'success' here is actually a failure, isnt it? 'Close' does not count.

interesting, so if you cannot copy my walk (which i guarantee you can't), then you are not human? or i am not human? noone is buying that.

finally a good, substantive post.

oh, so when we say something it's dismissible, but we if quote someone else saying it then you consider it and find it substantial? then i'm out because i'm not spending time looking up things that you (as a PGF expert) already know. fun chat though.

 

[jamesrav]

um.. the film is over 50 years old. HOW can anything novel be discussed? I havent heard you utter anything novel either; supernatural bigfoot is in dozens and dozens of tv "reality" shows already. Been there, done that. How about YOU come up with something novel and we can discuss it.



interesting, so if you cannot copy my walk (which i guarantee you can't), then you are not human? or i am not human? noone is buying that.


oh, so when we say something it's dismissible, but we if quote someone else saying it then you consider it and find it substantial? then i'm out because i'm not spending time looking up things that you (as a PGF expert) already know. fun chat though.

the Dinsdale Loch Ness film was 30 years old before someone had the idea of adjusting the contrast and noting a bright object at the front of the 'creature' which just happened to perfectly match up with the large round metal medallion that boats need to have, and which reflects light. So new info can be obtained. // Some human can copy your walk with practice, I'm not accepting that it's so unique. Post it // The recent long post including gait info gave me something to look into and try to counter. There were skeptical viewpoints given by the experts, so I'm not saying everyone agrees it's an inhuman gait. But to say Krantz did it for 30' (and with difficulty, according to him) and then extrapolating to 300' with basically "why not?" reasoning is taking shortcuts. // It seems to be well established then that the speed was 18fps. Even set at 16 it was 18. Everything points to 18 which then leads Grieve to say "If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait." If the walk did not feature non-human behavior, or involved a poor attempt to do a side-to-side hop you see when humans tried to mimic an ape, I wouldn't be here debating the film. But its a big point, since even a concerted effort with a willing subject, orchestrated by experts, could not quite match it.

 

[deirdre]

Some human can copy your walk with practice,

some human can, i'm sure. i said i bet YOU can't. how many people actually tried to mimic bigfoot walk? all i'm saying is if 10 people (esp those of the wrong build) tried to bigfoot walk it's very understandable none of those 10 could do it. Bob H does have a glide type gait which i doubt many could mimic even without the suit or adding the gorilla twist to it.

If the walk did not feature non-human behavior, or involved a poor attempt to do a side-to-side hop you see when humans tried to mimic an ape, I wouldn't be here debating the film.

that's useful info. maybe all the guys on this thread can try it and see what we come up with. i actually think i can mimic it (or what i see of it anyway) but i dont want to post my pic online ...esp if im walking as a bigfoot, it'll go viral without the caption i'm mimicking bigfoot, i'll be all over tik tok...how embarassing!

 

[jamesrav]

some human can, i'm sure. i said i bet YOU can't. how many people actually tried to mimic bigfoot walk? all i'm saying is if 10 people (esp those of the wrong build) tried to bigfoot walk it's very understandable none of those 10 could do it. Bob H does have a glide type gait which i doubt many could mimic even without the suit or adding the gorilla twist to it.


that's useful info. maybe all the guys on this thread can try it and see what we come up with. i actually think i can mimic it (or what i see of it anyway) but i dont want to post my pic online ...esp if im walking as a bigfoot, it'll go viral without the caption i'm mimicking bigfoot, i'll be all over tik tok...how embarassing!

true, I could not mimic your walk since I'm male and I presume you're female. And I posted that article that settled the question as to whether male and female humans walk differently. And you probably could not do the PG walk since according to Napier its a male walk. Which again circles back to the breasts issue , which confused Mark Chorvinsky (who I learned died at quite a young age, only 54 ; I still remember the day purchasing that edition of 'Strange Magazine' which covered the John Chambers 'link' to the PG film)
_________________
"Patterson was strongly influenced by the earlier 1955 William Roe case in eastern British Columbia involving a female Bigfoot.

Roe's description of the creature that he saw is very similar to the subject of the Patterson film, as are numerous aspects of the encounter. Consider the following from Roe: "...as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female...Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip...its arms were much thicker than a man's arms and longer reaching almost to its knees..[T]he nose was broad and flat..the hair that covered it (the face), leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth nose and ears...its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man's I have ever seen...It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face... [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come...again turning its head to look in my direction."

In his book, Patterson illustrates a scene from the Roe case that might as well be the design for what would later be the Patterson film. The resemblance is striking: the position and stance of the creature in the frame, the much-discussed hairy breasts, the general form of the creature, etc. suggest that this illustration was the storyboard for what would later become known as the Patterson film.

Indeed, when we peruse Patterson's book we find one illustration in particular that could explain one aspect of the Patterson Bigfoot: its large hirsute breasts. How many of us would have designed a Bigfoot with breasts like the one in the Patterson film? Some have suggested that the female nature of the Bigfoot in the Patterson film mitigates in favor of its reality in that it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have created such a Bigfoot. Patterson has drawings of two female Bigfoots in his book.
_____________________
that's a lengthy background of the Roe encounter (if it happened). And that leads to one of three possible conclusions:

1. The Roe encounter did happen, featured a real animal, as did Patterson's encounter. Not surprising that the female creatures looked similar since they are of the same species

2. The Roe encounter did happen, featured a real animal, and Patterson copied that as much as possible in his hoax. Despite it requiring a difficult adjustment to the suit (and I've read that frame analysis shows the breasts move, so they aren't just fixed-in-place objects), he went ahead and did it since he was so enamored with the Roe incident. Bob H. apparently would have no vote in the matter, and I've never seen him mention the breasts in any interviews. You'd think it would be worth a mention, even just for a chuckle.

3. The Roe encounter did happen, did not feature a real animal, nor did Patterson's encounter. But they were 'culturally linked' as Chorvinsky (an open-minded skeptic) discusses

"If the cultural transmission of Bigfoot/Sasquatch belief is at the heart of the Bigfoot phenomenon, as I suspect it is, then it is significant and no surprise that this image was passed on from Roe to Patterson. A comparison of Roe's daughter's drawing of Roe's Sasquatch and Patterson's female Bigfoot drawing is valuable: their strong similarity to the creature in the Patterson film demonstrates how the cultural transmission of the image of a phenomenon may be accomplished.

so I agree with this to a large degree, but not how he intends it (basically he opts for #2). I think the cultural transmission culminates in eventual non-hoaxed displays of this phenomena. By what means is unknowable at this point. The PG film was the supernova event that the 1958 Birth of Bigfoot (via the Crew tracks, very likely hoaxed in my opinion) and subsequent 'sightings' led up to.

Regarding the Crew tracks, by amazing coincidence found at Bluff Creek, it's apparently been the feeling that the 'fake stompers' used by Wallace did not match the giant Crew tracks, and so Wallace was not their source. But a side-by-side picture, showing the actual footprint of the cast (the white portion) shows a very strong match. So the Birth of Bigfoot at Bluff Creek is probably the result of a hoax. And Patterson films his Bigfoot there 9 years later. The Pacific Northwest is thousands of square miles, yet Bluff Creek was ground zero during that time. Evidence of hoaxes galore, or maybe something else.

 

[deirdre]

And you probably could not do the PG walk since according to Napier its a male walk.

yea but he cant see what bigfoots pelvis is doing. the guys do do (or used to) that swingy arm glidey walk in NYC, all i have to do is that, crouched a tad so my knees dont lock and lift my back foot higher.

i respect that the walk is the big evidence for you, but for me i never believed they couldnt find anyone to mimic the walk. did they ever get a dancer, do you know?

Not surprising that the female creatures looked similar since they are of the same species

i must admit i am a bit biased on her behalf, because it's super insulting they made her look like that. just because she's a bigfoot doesnt mean she has to look like an ugly man. with a super fat butt.

 

[Mendel]

And I posted that article that settled the question as to whether male and female humans walk differently.

It didn't.

 

[Ann K]

Roe's description of the creature that he saw is very similar to the subject of the Patterson film, as are numerous aspects of the encounter.

You got me curious, so I looked up the Roe affidavit. He is very specific about the hair:

None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/roe.htm

That's a notable point that does not agree with Patterson's much hairier creature, but does with existing gorillas (although their hair is not all over the body). That short hair, perhaps not coincidentally, would be a much harder thing to fake in a costume than a longer haired coat which could hide any padding.

 

[jamesrav]

yea but he cant see what bigfoots pelvis is doing. the guys do do (or used to) that swingy arm glidey walk in NYC, all i have to do is that, crouched a tad so my knees dont lock and lift my back foot higher.

i respect that the walk is the big evidence for you, but for me i never believed they couldnt find anyone to mimic the walk. did they ever get a dancer, do you know?


i must admit i am a bit biased on her behalf, because it's super insulting they made her look like that. just because she's a bigfoot doesnt mean she has to look like an ugly man. with a super fat butt.

it does have a face only a mother could love. Combined with the male walk, it's hard to envision this being 'attractive' to another of its species, but if its biological it must breed (and the figure Meldrum often gives of "several thousand" just seems hard to fathom in a country as well traveled as the US). Female gorillas are not that good-looking either (I had never googled pics, somehow always felt they were more 'delicate' looking but they really arent ; female orangs are to some extent). There are some good blow-ups of the Patterson subject, the fortuitous frame 352 turn to the camera shot (which apparently was a turn towards Gimlin, not Patterson) does reveal a lot of detail. Bob H. says he was wearing an old-style football helmet, but people have pointed out that doing so would result in space gaps which are not evident. Having seen pics of all the 1960's TV gorilla imitations, the PG subject bears no resemblance to any of them. And with John Chambers out of the picture as to the suit, who had the skill to craft such a mask?

Regarding the fur, the famed ape-actor Janos Prohaska felt the PG subject must have had fur glued directly on, and that would have taken 10 hours. I assume he (visually) felt the bulk and muscularity could not be achieved with a costume (and he would know), so some large man had fur glued directly to a thin body suit. And the Bob H. recreation photo (which he was destined to have to do, put up or shut up) shows that very clearly. It has no muscularity to it, its a big fluffy teddy bear.

 

[deirdre]

(and the figure Meldrum often gives of "several thousand" just seems hard to fathom in a country as well traveled as the US).

we have a crazy amount of open (ie. no humans) land.

Female gorillas are not that good-looking either

they are alot more female looking than that bigfoot. edit add: i mean of course in comparison to the males. i cant even imagine what a male bigfoot would look like if that is the female.

does reveal a lot of detail

can you share? because i dont know how you get good detail from a blurry photo unless you use AI tech which means it is useless.

Bob H. says he was wearing an old-style football helmet so would result in space gaps

space gaps where? and what does he mean by old style? like the leather ones?

And with John Chambers out of the picture as to the suit, who had the skill to craft such a mask?

Patterson. although im not sure i agree there is even a mask, the detail is too poor. He looks like my friend Johnny to my eye.

so some large man had fur glued directly to a thin body suit.

that's an awfully big butt for a body suit. but ive always disagreed with the "we see muscles" thing, all i see is padding and light dancing across the fur.


i think until time ends or the suit shows up, humans will just have to continue to agree to disagree about what the film itself shows.

 

[jamesrav]

we have a crazy amount of open (ie. no humans) land.
to some extent I agree, when Packham in the BBC docu is flying into Canada (I think), you can really appreciate how much pristine forest is out there. But even for the PG film, an isolated location, I've seen drawings showing there were roads very nearby Bluff Creek. There are forest service roads everywhere it seems

they are alot more female looking than that bigfoot. edit add: i mean of course in comparison to the males. i cant even imagine what a male bigfoot would look like if that is the female.


can you share? because i dont know how you get good detail from a blurry photo unless you use AI tech which means it is useless.
the 1st attach is what I've seen many times, so it must be considered the accepted version of the face (by the believers of course). It shows a definite human-like nose and lips. The 2nd attach is probably a Todd Standing shot, and all that represents. I do not follow modern 'Bigfootery' since it's become ridiculous and embarrassing. But it does show an incredible advancement in fakery over the past 50 years, in an effort to mimic the PG subject.

space gaps where? and what does he mean by old style? like the leather ones?
yes, like the one shown here. Which leads to the problem of how did they attach fur to such a helmet? Great idea as compared to the lame rubber gorilla heads, but now you need to add fur to a helmet. This is then getting way beyond what most people consider to be a silly hoax.

Patterson. although im not sure i agree there is even a mask, the detail is too poor. He looks like my friend Johnny to my eye.


that's an awfully big butt for a body suit. but ive always disagreed with the "we see muscles" thing, all i see is padding and light dancing across the fur.
the buttocks are a problem, it's been called the 'diaper butt' problem. As a real animal (with very hairy breasts, unknown among primates, along with a male gait) its likely another 'point against' or requires belief that 'since that's what is there, then it evolved that way for a good reason'. Would gorilla-like muscular buttocks allow for the 43" stride? The Mr. Luci film I posted, when its playing in reverse, has one step that is quite extreme. A squishy buttocks may allow that to happen.

i think until time ends or the suit shows up, humans will just have to continue to agree to disagree about what the film itself shows.

 

[deirdre]

@jamesrav interesting. actually in that pic i do see space gaps and i see the leather cheek bone shape beneath the space gaps. there are even holes in the helmet to sew the fur to. huh.

 

[jamesrav]

@jamesrav interesting. actually in that pic i do see space gaps and i see the leather cheek bone shape beneath the space gaps. there are even holes in the helmet to sew the fur to. huh.

I dont know what you mean by "sew fur to", this is a hard helmet (remember, it was meant to protect the player's brain), so I doubt it's amenable to sewing. Gluing it on, little pieces at a time? maybe. But in referring to Bob H.'s interviews, he's never mentioned anything about such an exquisite face, or putting on the helmet. It's always "and Roger told me to put on the suit and start walkin'" You'd think he'd mention what a amazing 'prop' they were employing for this hoax. The Todd Standing pic shows what's possible just with make-up, no helmet. There's a great sequence showing a pic of his face with gradual overlays of hair. He's the Bigfoot, and his sister apparently is a make-up specialist. The football helmet idea has its pros and cons, I just dont understand the fur application aspect. The nose appears hairless, so it's pure helmet there. Doesnt really match the helmet photo, looks like a 'real' nose to me.

 

[deirdre]

this is a hard helmet

you wrap it (the thread) through the holes. fur doesnt come as individual strands of hair. any fur whether real animal or fake comes with either a skin or mesh backing its no different than fabric.

But in referring to Bob H.'s interviews, he's never mentioned anything about such an exquisite face, or putting on the helmet.

what? you said:

Bob H. says he was wearing an old-style football helmet,

The football helmet idea has its pros and cons, I just dont understand the fur application aspect

i can apply fur to it. although i might need to use an awl and poke some more holes in the helmet. the football helmet also would explain the pointy head...has any gorilla expert said anything about a pointy head because in pics only the males have a pointy head..that ive seen anyway.

Doesnt really match the helmet photo, looks like a 'real' nose to me.

yea that's not a helmet nose. but again Patterson made saddles which means he can sew leather. he an sew fur to leather, he can sew leather to leather. he works with leather.

 

[deirdre]

didnt eskimo people sew fur to their leather coats and boots? i doubt glue would hold in alaska cold. i am a bit confused why that costume guy said you had to glue fur on. even on a body suit. you'd sew it on. you'd glue it to his face like the pink panther when he wore fake beards...but the body or a hat you would attach with a big needle.

the costume guy maybe meant it would take 10 hours to glue the hair to the face... like the freddy kruger face took hours to apply each day. ???

 

[deirdre]

see you poke little holes and then sew the thread through

 

[jamesrav]

The mention of wearing an old style football helmet is made in the book (which I've never read, but have seen excerpts of by those who did), I've never seen him mention the helmet (or breasts) in interviews.

I think the full helmet is a tough sell for matching the pic of Patty's face, the 'simple' helmet is perhaps more likely. But that means either Bob H. then put on a mask over the helmet leading to the gap problem, or as you say, the hair was somehow sewed on - I may have to see if the library has the book to see how much detail Bob H. gives about the mask. You may be giving him way more credit than he deserves if he simply mentions it was a helmet and does not go into detail you have. The site I got the Patty face pic from showed a two-frame gif that seems to show lip movement. That all seems way beyond the ability of what could be done in 1967. Other-Dimensional Being is easier for me to accept

 

[deirdre]

You may be giving him way more credit than he deserves if he simply mentions it was a helmet and does not go into detail you have.

im not giving Bob H any credit. i said Patterson could sew fur to a leather helmet. and you posted a pic of the helmet with the full face (which does match that "enhanced" bigfoot pic YOU provided).

 

[NorCal Dave]

finally a good, substantive post. The final post will therefore have to come after this post.

So were on the same page:

1. When I say Bigfoot, I'm referring to what I think Krantz, Dahinden, Meldrum and others are talking about. An actual bipedal hominin species that is indigenous to North America and, at least up until '60s, maintained a viable breeding population. I'm not discussing "Paranormal Bigfoot", as talking about how Paranormal Bigfoot walks is irrelevant. By definition, Paranormal Bigfoot can do whatever it, or its handlers, wants.

2. You seem to have focused in on 2 key points that show the PG film, can NOT be a hoax, if I'm understanding you correctly:
1. Film related, is the unusual walking gait the creature appears to use.
2. Contextually related, that is, things surrounding the creation of the film, is the poor showing of Bob Heronemus as a witness with his claim to be in the suit.

Taken together, the creature walks in a way no human can adequately reproduce and the person that claims to be doing that walk in a suit is unreliable, therefore it cannot be a hoax. Correct?

I can also get down to 2 key points, that I don't think prove a hoax, but certainly call into question the voracity of this film as evidence of a real Bigfoot.
1. Film related; the equipment used at the distances the creature was, cannot resolve many crucial details of a hoax or a real creature. Hence the large focus on the gait, as that can be seen, somewhat. What is seen is clearly bipedal, so it rules out a possible misidentification. This is not a bear on its hind legs filmed from a funny angle.
2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film.

"Rose was certain their subject had matched Patty's gait, while Gamble was not quite as sure. Meldrum was impressed and acknowledged that "some aspects" of the creature's walk had been replicated, but not all. The narrator said, "even the experts can see the gait test could not replicate all parameters of the gait." I assume the narrator is referencing Meldrum and Gamble vs. Rose.

Best Evidence is a Discovery channel show. While they did bring us the Mythbusters, they also gave us Mermaids: The Body of Evidence (a complete fabrication). The Discovery Network(s) prime focus is to deliver a reliable number of viewers in particular demographic groups to advertisers for the purpose of generating a profit. Not conduction good science.

Now this show is from 2007, so before Discovery went full tilt fringe like today, nevertheless here is some of the other episodes from its one and only season:

Episodes[edit]

1. "TWA Flight 800"
2. "Bigfoot"
3. "Chemical Contrails": Jet-aircraft vapor trails may be toxic.
4. "The Roswell Incident"
5. "John Wayne's Death"
6. "Cattle Mutilations"
7. "Near-Death Experiences"
8. "Alien Abductions"
9. "Crop Circles"
10. "The Visitors"
11. "Strange Encounters"
12. "The Government Cover Up"
13. "UFO Phenomenon"

"Government Cover-up"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Evidence

It's fring-ish, but I assume that doesn't mean our human walking experts weren't trying to do their best. Its going to cost $2.00 and 40 minutes if I want to watch this on Amazon. Maybe.

What I can't find as any paper or information about what Rose and Gamble thought, other than what is edited and presented to us in this show. Not saying there was anything nefarious, but @Brian Dunning SciencFriction film (on Amazon) details how experts are routinely edited and misquoted on shows like this to conform to prearranged conclusions.

Still, they got very close to doing it, which prompted this:

I think I've seen that documentary, they had to teach the fellow how to mimic the gait. It took practice, much verbal input. Still could not replicate all parameters. This would be considered 'best attempt', with huge advantages over the real situation, and yet could not replicate all parameters. An 85 or 90% 'success' here is actually a failure, isnt it? 'Close' does not count. A 90% replication of an airplane is not a good thing. The subject came close, so lets give it to him? I think that violates some tenets of science.

If the creature is somebody in a suit, with oversized shoes (not clown feet), extended oversized arms and some sort of mask who was pretending to be Bigfoot while walking in sandy gravel it might produce all sorts of strange looking gaits. Now someone is tasked with reproducing it. Exactly!

The person trying to do it is, I would argue, at a disadvantage. If the stage walk is the spontaneous results of the parameters listed above, it's just that, spontaneous. They did it once and didn't have to do it again. Or, maybe they did it many times and it looked different each time, but we only have one record of it.

It would be like taking one film of Hendrix playing an unknown song on guitar live. He's just playing, he may not even be sure what he is doing, just letting the music flow. But then, having seen and heard this, we want another guitarist to replicate it exactly. It's probably going to take some time and practice. First figuring out what was played, how it was played and then trying to replicate it.

And it's possible that all the practice and verbal input needed, may just be for dramatic effect. If somebody looked at the film and started to walk like that, it doesn't make for good TV.

Now if Bigfoot is a real creature and is depicted in the PG film, than it is a fully bipedal like modern human. Despite a slight hunch it walks upright like we do, thus sharing a common ancestor in the past. Many of its anitomical features would, by default, be very similar to ours:

Bipedalism, or upright walking, is argued by many to be the hallmark of being a hominin. Humans are unique among all living primates in the way that they move around. In fact the striding bipedalism that we engage in, where one leg moves in front of the other, is incredibly rare in mammals, and we are the only living member of that group to move in such a way. With such an unusual behavior comes a suite of very particular and specialized anatomical features (see Table 1 for a brief summary). Our skull is balanced directly on top of our spine, a feature that is in part driven by the position and orientation of the foramen magnum (the hole at the bottom of the skull where the spinal cord exits). In humans it is horizontal and anteriorly situated (i.e., toward the face). We have a curved spine and a wide, cup-shaped pelvis, with short iliac blades and a large hip joint. These features facilitate the support of the vertical trunk of the body as well as efficiently transfer weight through to the legs during both standing still and walking or running. Our legs themselves are very long compared to our arms, we have knee joints that can fully extend and lock, and a highly unique foot with a robust ankle region and specialized arches for shock absorption. We have also lost many useful features for climbing, such as an opposable big toe, curved finger and toe bones, and specialist adaptations in the shoulder joint. This loss of arboreal capability is almost as important as the acquisition of specialist bipedal adaptations, as it points to strong directional selection for bipedal locomotion exclusively on the ground (Aiello and Dean 1990; Harcourt-Smith 2007).

Thus, it's not going to walk in a radically different way than we do. It might be a little different, but something humans can, and did replicate. This stands to reason, the pelvis of bipedal hominins is unique compared to other apes.

I just don't see the unusual gait as a huge reason to say it could not be a hoax. If there were lots of other films of Bigfoots walking around and they all walked that way, then maybe things would be different, but were back to what I've said before about the lack of any other compelling evidence.

Bob H. has made much of the fact that he walks like the film subject. And admittedly he does share some of the style.(I've seen it). He certainly does not achieve the angles observed, nor the extreme high-stepping, but he's closer than someone picked off the street. But is that the result of subsequent (post 2005) practice, or has he always walked that way? I bet he's practiced a little to mimic it, dont you think? Since the experts showed it could be (mostly) mimicked with practice, maybe he's an example of that.

So, the un-human gait that can't be replicated kinda looks like Heronemus' actual walk? And this is because he has been practicing it to give credence to his story?

Wouldn't it just be easier for him to get his story straight and made sure it aligned with publicly available narratives, rather than teach himself a completely new way of walking later in life?

Giving what we now know about memory according to people like Dr. Elizibeth Loftus and others (bold by me):

Loftus, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, is the most influential female psychologist of the twentieth century, according to a list compiled by the Review of General Psychology. Her work helped usher in a paradigm shift, rendering obsolete the archival model of memory—the idea, dominant for much of the twentieth century, that our memories exist in some sort of mental library, as literal representations of past events. According to Loftus, who has published twenty-four books and more than six hundred papers, memories are reconstructed, not replayed. "Our representation of the past takes on a living, shifting reality," she has written. "It is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoeba-like creature."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/05/how-elizabeth-loftus-changed-the-meaning-of-memory

It's very likely that Heronemas, if he's the guy in the suit, has misremembered and confabulated many of the details of the event and/or filled in many details as how he thought they may have occurred 15-40 years in the past.

This would help with your seeming obsession about Heronemas saying that Patterson told him to "walk like a gorilla." Maybe Patterson did say it, or maybe he said "walk like a Bigfoot" or "walk like a monkey" or "walk like yourself" or "walk funny" or he may have said nothing at all. What's important is 15-20 years later what did Heronemas likely think Patterson would have told him? That would have become his memory, correct or not.

If there is no other tangible evidence for Bigfoot, Heronemas claims he was in the suit and he walks in a similar fashion to the creature, than Occam's razor would say, he is likely the guy in the suit. I'm not saying he is definitively. Al DeAtley the brother-in-law, and only person that seems to have actually made some money with the film is a candidate. As is Gimlin, he's the only other person we know was there, I don't think he appears on film with the creature, and he had no compunctions about dressing up as an "Indian Guide" in Patterson's first attempt at a Bigfoot film.

Indeed, when we peruse Patterson's book we find one illustration in particular that could explain one aspect of the Patterson Bigfoot: its large hirsute breasts. How many of us would have designed a Bigfoot with breasts like the one in the Patterson film? Some have suggested that the female nature of the Bigfoot in the Patterson film mitigates in favor of its reality in that it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have created such a Bigfoot. Patterson has drawings of two female Bigfoots in his book.
_____________________

Just a thought. If the film was a hustle and was to end up in the 4-wall circuit with middle Americans viewing it, which it did, these guys are from what is today fairly conservative parts of the country. Making the creature a female with hair covered breasts does 2 things. It covers the breasts, kinda like bikini and shows that its female.

If it's a male Bigfoot, it's going to need some Bigfoot sized wedding tackle. Yes, testicular size in primates is determined by sperm competition, such that big Silver-back gorillas have rather tiny junk, but even if Patterson was aware of that, he would have had to explain all of that every time he showed film with a large male Bigfoot that appears to be a unick.

If people are seeing a film of a male Bigfoot, they're going to expect to see some Bigfoot sized twig & berries swinging back and forth with each stride. Not something they're going to take their wives and daughters to.

 

[JMartJr]

In reference to the close-up of the face from the film, posted by jamesrav above in #231 above (I suspect this is because you put your comments inside what you quoted from deirdre, but the reply feature does not carry your remarks down to this reply.) Anyway, you said:

the 1st attach is what I've seen many times, so it must be considered the accepted version of the face (by the believers of course). It shows a definite human-like nose and lips.

Wellll... yes and no. It definitely very much looks like a face, which you'd expect whether it was a real critter of a costume. But I suspect pareidolia is filling in a lot of details. If you crop it very tight, to remove the gorilla-monster-like body which helps cue your brain as to what sort of face to make out of the blurry image, it is easier to see the lack of detail and the "general face like blobs" nature of the image. Even there, having seen the face in context so many times, it is STILL hard to see how little detail is there. But maybe not quite as hard.

EDITED to add: It may be easier to step away from what we've learned to see by looking at this pic in context with a gorilla-monster body to look at the image flipped l/r, to move away from learned interpretation. Or maybe it is not. Anyway, worth a try: