Like I always say; if the Patterson Bigfoot film was faked, then it would have been reproduced many, many times. Yet it has not been recreated once in the past 57 years! Critics can talk the talk, but they can never walk the walk ( or gait, lol ).
exactly. it hasnt been recreated and never will be. if bigfoot was real the hundreds of people with cell phones in the woods would have gotten a video by now, if two cowboys on horses can do it, anybody can. bob heironimus looks and walks like it.
As someone who's worn costumes w/little visibility & lack of peripheral vision, what always surprised me about the P/G footage is how Patty strides along so non-chalantly, as if she's been walking in her body all her life. If this somebody who just put on a suit, they'd be walking rather awkwardly, possibly tripping over brush, twigs & stones on the ground. They would've had to practice dozens of times or a preemptively prepare a clear path & know exactly where to walk. Have you ever tried to walk through a forest w/o a path? It's rough, cumbersome & awkward. Now imagine walking through that same forest w/o any peripheral vision, limited visibility inside a "gorilla suit"!
@@Lindormking89 Also why go hundreds of miles and all the expense to Bluff Creek in California, when they lived in Yakima, WA, where Roger did most of his outdoor research, when reports of Bigfoots were coming out of Mt. Saint Helen area.
Plus you have to fill out a suit, somehow, that is 7'9", yet not appear as a smaller human inside it, give the impression of weighing 800 pounds or much more, and has real muscle movement underneath, controlled, by.. what?
Patty was the real thing- a female bf. Both the suit needed and tracks faked at the site were impossible. She has muscle all over, and a female suit showing it is laughable. The tracks were seen both before and after the film, so it eliminates patterson as a hoaxer.
Bob H's claims are a joke. When asked where it was filmed he originally said Washington, then when he found out it was in California, he guessed where and was hundreds of miles off. He changed his guess several times and the closest he's guessed (now that we all know where the filmsite is) is Weichtpec, which is about 40 miles off. A horseman/outdoorsman being 40 miles off after several guesses over the years is very telling. When they asked Gimlin of the location, he was only about 10o yards off. Another issue is that Phillip Morris says he made the suit, and Bob Heironimous confirms that it was a Phillip Morris suit. The issue is that Bob claims the suit was waders with football shoulder pads, a two piece, but Phillip Morris has a totally different description of the suit. Phillip Morris DID sell a gorilla suit at the time, but it was for like kids parties, NOT studio quality. They actually tried to bury that recreation you showed. I tell people that debating the authenticity of the PG film is understandable, but it was definitely NOT Bob Heronimous.
Just to play devils advocate, in my opinion what does point to the PG film being a hoax is that it has been fifty plus years since the film was made. During that time the number of people looking for Sasquatch has increased thousands of times. Yet in those 50 years we have not gotten ONE bit of film that matches the Patterson/Gimlin film in detail and clarity. With all the people looking for Sasquatch, with all the trail cams, with all the technology we have at our disposal....you would think we would have quite a few "Patterson/Gimlin" films out there.
To play devil advocate to your devil advocate..... consider this; In 1950's, they discovered Mountain gorillas were actually real. In 1967, there was way way more rural and uninhabited area than there is now. I think its quite possible our species saw the tail end of the existence of what is classified as Gigantopithecus. Native Americans have names for them. In the NW, they talk about something called 'Skookum'. The direct translation is 'Skunk Ape'. In my early 20's, I talked with a hi way patrolman that lived in the neighborhood I grew up in. He was an outdoorsman and came across footprints. Plaster casts were made. I saw the plaster casts one day when I visited. What struck me was, the lines and ridges in the sole of the foot were visible. The wrinkles and lines on the sole were just like on a human foot. However the print didn't have much of an arch. I was a doubter up until I saw that footprint. Far too much detail to produce something like that for zero money or payoff. Or maybe he knew a guy with a size 30 shoe (guessing) and had him walk barefoot out there. I think its possible that we as a species glimpsed the very tail end of the existence of another species. Which would explain why none are seen anymore.
Patty is real. I would advise anyone to look at Thinker Thunker’s work. The female Bigfoot in the film has arms that are equal length as her legs as well as her torso. This is a very distinct measurement that is seen in a few others captured on film. Human legs are always 20 to 30% longer than our arms. And for the skeptics that say he had arm extensions, then his elbows would have been in the wrong place. The elbows in the film are clearly in the center of the arm where they should be. you can also see the muscles underneath the hair, especially when her leg hits the ground. The mid tarsal break that Dr. Meldrum chronicled is also seen in the film and she lifts the forward half of her foot up in the air before stepping down. This is impossible with a fake foot. That same mid tarsal break is also seen in the Provo Canyon footage just before the creature steps down. Then there’s the gait of the walk. human legs when walking no matter if we are wearing heels, barefoot, big clown shoes, etc. always has the same percentage of lift. I can’t remember the percentage off hand. But the real films show that they walk differently, lifting their leg to a 90° bend in the knee. University studies have tried to teach people to walk this way and capture it on film and it takes a lot of work and it still isn’t correct.I would also advise anyone to take a look at M. K. Davis’ work. He has slowed down the video, stabilized it and zoomed in more than anyone else has been able to achieve. The face is clearly not a mask, you can see the fine details. RIP Robert Patterson. Bob Gimlin is a joy to listen to. He has never changed his story and you can feel the truth of his words as he talks. One of my favorite things he has said is when he first laid eyes upon it that day, his first thought was, “My God they are real.”
Thanks for such a detailed and thoughtful comment! I really appreciate you bringing up the arm-to-leg ratios, the mid-tarsal break, and the gait-those are such crucial points that skeptics often overlook. Thinker Thunker and Dr. Meldrum’s work have definitely contributed a lot to this discussion, and I agree, Bob Gimlin’s consistency over the years is remarkable. It’s great to see someone so passionate and informed about this topic-your insights really add value to the conversation!
@@cabininthewoods517 OK so I think I’ve mixed you up with another channel. Sorry about that. This is the video I was referring to in my last comment. I thought for sure this was your family. Lol. ruclips.net/video/DnILp5TnEuo/видео.htmlsi=Wbt62fd6KvfNSaTE
@@cabininthewoods517 apparently RUclips deleted the comment that I made in reply to your comment. You’re probably all sorts of confused now. I replied that I appreciated your response and I asked if you were the guy who filmed the UFO flying over his cabin in the woods while filming the Milky Way. and apparently I was wrong about that, you guys are two separate channels. Anyway, this Bigfoot video is amazing and you’re doing a great job and more people need to get the truth out there. I’ve been researching UFO and Bigfoot stuff for many years. Take care, brother. Oh, and I learned the other day from a lady who says she does mindspeak with them that their real name is AYOLYN and that they prefer not to be called Bigfoot because it sounds derogatory. Not sure if that’s true or not, but it would be pretty cool if it is true. Anyway, take care.
I wanna add to that if I could and I think its something TT should clarify (or maybe even he hasn't noticed) but its not the 90 degree knee bend in the leading leg that is important because after all, we can do a 90 degree knee bend in our leading leg. It's the trailing leg with the knee bend that we absolutely cannot pull off even with practice period. Notice her trailing heel is straight up and is an inch or so from the ground but yet her knee is bent at an angle. If I were to bend my trailing knee at that angle my foot is far from the ground. I would have to squat walk to even come close and that is not our natural movement but it is with patty and she is not squat walking. Stand up and bend your knee and see how quickly your foot leaves the ground. This is not the case with Patty because her tibia and fibula is more towards the center of her foot to stabilize more weight and that is all the reason why her foot has barely left the ground when her knee is bent.
@@cabininthewoods517 I do have one question......are horses normally spooked so easily........if you watch the film and hear the story it is mentioned the horse got spooked and moved around so much Roger Patterson fell off his horse.............would the horse been spooked if it was someone in a suit.... I assume horses would get nervious near Bears and Big Cats , Wolfs as well in the Forest and a Bigfoot.
Did you bother to check to see if large primates, say a gorilla for example, have that same hair line? I did and they do. The leading special effects artists of the time stated that a suit with the features seen in PG were beyond capability. Hate to break it to you but your "expertise" doesn't supersede theirs. It's a real creature.
@ghandb There are no large primates in the United States or Canada other than H. sapiens. Show me some scientifically proven evidence and not some eyewitness reports or blurry videos. That's not evidence.
Three things make me lean toward "Patty" being real. 1. If this is a costume. It is better than Hollywood could make at the time. Just look at Planet of the Apes. That was state of the art at the time. 2. Why would they go to the trouble of making it female? That would be much more work and complicated to do. 3. The musclature. It is obvious if you look at the calf muscle the definition is big and heavy, and well defined like a body builder. That wasn't possible to do with a costume in 1967.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 The William Roe encounter plays out exactly like the PGF. The PGF is a literal recreation of it. One major argument from supporters is always the "why would a hoaxer put breasts on the suit" line... Well he put breasts on it because that detail was ripped off the William Roe sighting.
@@GilbertSyndrome there were 2 armed witnesses on horseback vs 1 hiking. Roe looked through bushes to see his creature, while patty is striding in plain view after getting up from behind a log. Different circumstances completely. Roe bf means absolutely nothing.
I saw one along the trinity river in California in 1991. Before cell phones. No pics, no vids, nobody but myself there to see it. But because skeptics weren’t there it means it’s not true. That’s fine. I know what I saw and I’m more informed because of it.
@@zen4men Aliens too. In the mountains at nite and alone. Scared the crap out of me but what can you do? Miles from a road in the deep black forest. Twice one nite I saw the gray one and then the black triangle craft came down and a bunch of really ugly ones surrounded me. The rest is text book. Just like you read that happens to others except that I’m not able to block the memories. Or rather, they didn’t bother to do the whole memory wipe thing. I’ll never go back into those woods alone again. One day I found a bunch of trees with human bones, feathers and old saddle blankets in them. I found an old powder horn with the initials J.B. Cut and burnt into it. Lots of gold dust. Too many bears and too many scary things in those trees.
If it's a geezer in a suit, then why do we not have better Hoaxes in this modern age? Suits are better now so you would think we would have tons of bigfoot videos that rival Patty, but we don't. The mystery continues....
Furthermore why did this so called suit used in the patty film never to be used or seen again. Doesn’t add up as this so called suit would have costs a ton to make it look that real to be only used once with little to no money being made off for said hoaxed vid. 🍻
How much money would have made the creator of this costume at Hollywood, working on different projects? And remains anonymous without any other new costumes?
@@ioann235 The suit was supposedly used in a sci-fi movie, can't remember the name, the mask was made by Wah Chang and was used in Star Trek. The pictures are out there if you dig around.
@GilbertSyndrome Patterson costume has NO TOO LONG OR TOO DENSE HAIRS. All the other costumes I have seen have 4-5 inch long hairs and the hairs are so dense that you can't see anything under, no shape no contours no demarcation no contractions nothing, they are made to hide as much as possible and you end up watching kinda the overall shape of a gorilla🙂 In all these posts, nobody points to a similar costume showing anatomical details, used in some movies.
@@ioann235 The suit was modified by Roger from existing parts, by all accounts. I'm pretty sure you can see the mask if you type "Wah Chang Bigfoot" on Google. Janos Prohaska supposedly glued the hair onto the suit.
So your only "evidence" is the lack of evidence? Well, as a lawyer, allow me to explain a basic principle. 'A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself' Now you grab a cup of moonshine, pop on your tinfoil hat, and mull that over.
“So your only 'evidence' is the lack of evidence?" Not quite. As a lawyer, I’d have expected you to review all the material before delivering your closing statement. Note to self: avoid your firm if I ever need to win. 🙂
My friend, don't ever try to argue (or even reason) with these people. They are willing to believe literally anything. In all these years, with all the advancements in technology, not one piece of credible evidence or any legitimate film of "bigfoot". Even with stationary cameras that capture all kinds of wildlife every day. But over 50 years ago, some guy wandering around in the woods with a camera, just happens to film this giant creature, that's never been seen again (with any proof). This same guy (even according to this video) was also struggling financially.. And just happens to hit the lottery, with the film of the century.. It definitely checks out ✅ 🙄
I have seen Hollywood make up experts that have reviewed this film and not one said it was a human inside of fur suit. I have seen experts review the bone structure that is shown with this figure walking and not one said it is a human gait or a gait that humans can imitate. It appears this is a video that is a real unknown figure.
@@w.l7515 there are scientists right here on RUclips saying it is a man in a suit. If bigfoot existed, they would also die, and the one piece of evidence that inarguably can't be faked, a body, is the one piece of evidence we don't have. Coincidence?
The enhanced footage should always be prefaced with a note that the hair and muscles are what a computer program interprets should be in the pg footage.
@ there is no footage of muscle in the original pg footage, my problem is the enhanced video being presented as original footage, not weather or not Bigfoot exists.
They have a domed head like a primate so more jaw muscle can attach to the head. The draw back to this is they can't turn their neck like us because of the muscle mass and that is why she is turning more at the waist than her neck.
Bob H said he wore a football helmet under the mask to help make the head look so big. Bob H had one eye. I find it hard to believe he could see clear enough through one eye mask hole, supposedly over a helmet (creates distance from eye to eye opening), and not trip even once during that film. Costume aside, I'd love to see someone attempt that scenario and walk effortlessly through a sandy wash and into the woods.
The more I see it, the more convinced it is undeniably real. Working with zoo animals and wild animals for decades, I know the difference between a jack-a-lope and a snow shoe hare. Having worked with African mammals, including gorillas and chimps, and all manner of reptiles and bats, I know how intelligent even the smallest snake is, and how good they all are at staying hidden as much as possible.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 The idea that any of us men that have dealt with females would ever try to impersonate one is ridiculous. I do find it curious that the female bigfoot was able to go the entire video without bitching about something,, Maybe it was conveyed in that "what's your problem" look she gave
There’s actually an interesting backstory I heard on the “Patty” case. It was either on Buckeye Bigfoot or Dixie Cryptid. And obviously, I have no way of validating this story, but basically, some government agents or paid hunters were sent to Northern California to “eliminate” a family or a group of Sasquatch-Patty’s family. Not sure why it was a problem, or if the Bigfoot were threatening some government operations out there or something. But they needed it “taken care of”. They sent in what was essentially a small militia. Long story short, it was a brutal killing, all of the sasquatch, young and old, were shot and hunted, and had their corpses taken away. Patty somehow survived and was the lone remaining member of the clan, I guess she had hid effectively. The famous Patty tape was filmed supposedly the very next day, or possibly the same day, showing her distressed, not sure what to do, and completely bewildered yet not really in any rush to escape, or seemingly THAT threatened-because she’s elderly and couldnt run any faster. She was the head matriarch of her clan. People say how fast Bigfoot is. And it’s true. When they’re young. Patty had arthritis and other issues causing her to simply walk away as we see. She couldn’t flee any faster. Not to mention, her entire family and support system was killed and now she has no choice but to walk away from these humans filming her, as quickly as she physically can.
@ErikAndrew-q2p yea. Its bullshit. No substance, zero evidence of that. In fact the evidence proves it didn't happen. Just a made up story by someone trying to gain some cash or fame
I'll admit it: I cynically clicked on this video to talk trash in the comments about how this obviously was a guy in a suit...now you've got me really thinking about this. Great video. I'm listening now haha
In an interview with Mr.Gimlin, he said that Roger Patterson took a movie camera on the trip, because “someone had seen bigfoots” out near where he and Gimlin were going to ride horses. How lucky.
If there are Bigfoots,why hasn't there been any close encounters with humans or more substantial evidence of their existence over the last few hundred years? They have to be the most stealthiest creatures on earth
Yeah, 10 foot tall, apparently stinky and heavy with really big feet.....and yet somehow stealthier than a medium sized cat like a Jaguar, cougar, leopard......or even a friggin Ninja. Give em some throwing stars and a sword and they'd be friggin super assassins ffs. 🤷♂😂🤣
You obviously have never studied the subject at all. A discussion with you would be a total waste of time for anyone with even a Bachelor of Science degree.
Who says there "haven't been any close encounters"???!!! There have been THOUSANDS, and that's just here in Australia (the "Yowie"), let alone in the USA and Canada - I've had one close encounter myself !!!!
День назад
Exactly. None shot by hunters, none captured, none even SEEN. No recordings, videos by trail cameras, etc. This video is just trolling people. Big foot does not exist, nor has it ever. Like the missing link.
@TomasFunes-rt8rd Sure you have... Millions of encounters daily! Everyone had at least a couple of them. Yet scientifically, there's not the slightest evidence, except blurry 10 seconds video's. Come on, man! Get real🤣🤣😂
In Bob's brother's defense, my own brothers didn't believe I was blind for the first 25 years. They though I just had a mild astigmatism. I've been legally blind for 44 years - like no driver's license, walking with a white cane, using text to speech, holding peoples' arms, falling down stairs - blind. They didn't believe it.
My question is why after almost 60 years we still haven't captured a physical sasquatch. That would definately make sceptics like me a believer because we would have real tangible evidence not like the evidence presented here.
@@eclecticcompass If someone found a Bigfoot and captured it you are saying people wouldn’t believe it? If I caught a Tyrannosaurus and you could see it at a zoo you would tell me it isn’t real?
The big question, same as Loch Ness, you need a breeding population, at least 30 or so. Even widely dispersed and solitary, signs of food scraps, kills, and scat should be visible. What is bigfoot supposed to eat anyway?
What food scraps? How would you distinguish Bigfoot food scraps from other scraps? What if they shit in a ditch and bury it? There is plenty for them to eat, especially if there is only a few thousands of them. From berries to leaf matter to deer. Bigfoot could eat anything it wants, really.
I have a theory, not a popular one. If this was a real creature (still not entirely convinced but you never know) then maybe they went extinct not long after this film. That would explain why there were no other photos or films as convincing due to a very small population or why we don't see any real good evidence today.
Of course there is a population of them. They have been seen in every state I presume. Here in Texas, deep east Texas is a hotbed of activity and sightings. Just last month or so a woman saw a huge sasquatch crossing a railroad track in Liberty County. In broad daylight.
I have a rather interesting experience regarding theatrical quality animal costumes. As teen school boys we used to have several of us that would sneak out at night (say 3 am) and just kind of roam around our neighborhood, either toilet papering peoples yards or maybe breaking in the local connivence store or throwing oranges at passing cars on the local main road,,,genrally just causing mayhem. So we are out one night and we see a Lincoln Continental parked in a carport that we had never seen before and it had the trunk open. So one of us went up and checked it out and reported back it had a very large suitcase in it and the house seemed dead quiet. So we grabbed the suitcase, which was heavy as hell, and hauled ass into the nearest woods. When we opened it to our surprise we found a VERY expensive/realistic Gorilla costume. So the biggest amongst us (His name was Louis and he was already over 6 feet) was volunteered to put it on and scare cars as they drove by. Every time I see the PG film it immediately reminds me of how our tallest friend looked in the Gorilla costume....to me the PG film screams Man in a costume!
Seriously you guys are hysterical! 😂😂😂 I never cease to be amazed at the gullibility of people who appear to be normal functioning humans! Priceless! 😂😂😂
The video presented evidence to debunk the theory that the creature was merely a man in a suit, and in my opinion did so quite well. Do you have some evidence, other than what was already presented and debunked in this video, that it WAS a man in a suit? Surely you must have something to present other than a statement, otherwise why make the statement?
Brother.....THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO! I live not far from Deep Fork River in Oklahoma! I KNOW WHAT I SAW at 3am standing off the highway near motion triggered lights by a trailer park! The top of it's head come to the bottom of the eve of the double wide it was standing by. As I drove north on 75 those lights triggered and I was afraid the rut had deer moving so I took my foot off the gas. I might not have seen the silhouette was SO BLACK! Blacker than the night! It was standing off the road probably forty to fifty yards, down an embankment towards the homes, but like I said, IT WAS SOL BLACK and brawn. It was facing me broadside as I drove by! The arms were wayyy long! I actually let out a "Holy SH*T!", because I couldn't believe what I was seeing and caught myself looking in the rearview mirror for another glimpse, but hit the gas and went on! NOT KIDDING! It shook me up so bad I flagged down the first policeman I came to in the next town and told him there was something HUGE walking around down by Deep Fork and those trailer houses! Anyway, I relayed my story on my show that morning, still in shock and got a call from THE VERY GUY WHO OWNED the lawn ornament store across the highway! He said he too had had an encounter with that VERY creature one night when it tripped his alarm and he had to go up and reset it with a county deputy! He said they both watched it cross four lanes of highway 75 in probably less than a dozen steps and the deputy actually went for his larger weapons in his cruiser fearing if it came back his Glock wouldn't have been enough to stop it! Furthermore an OLD OLD TRAPPER contacted me and said they used to go coon hunting down there back in the seventies before something ran 'em out! He said one night something screamed at us so HORRIFICALLY LOUD, my dogs ran to the truck and my brother and I found ourselves walking backwards all the way out of there! Something warned us that night and told us not to come back and we didn't! I SAW NOTHING, he claimed. But couldn't place that bone chilling ass scream with anything I'd ever heard in my life from any creature! "I can't even mimic the sound.", Lee said. What I say is true and I'm so thankful for this video! THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT WE DON'T KNOW FOLKS and I think they use the rivers like a highway! I'm not crazy either! hahahaha
And I’m 99.9% sure that that is a guy in a suit. Expert testimony, well, that would be me . I have every bit the expertise that Bill Muns ever did, and the footage looks like a guy in a baggie suit. There were definitely rumors in the industry that John Chambers may have had something to do with this, but it was never confirmed.
Your confidence is noted, but let’s take a closer look at your claims: 1. Even if I were to believe you’re an expert in special effects (and I have my doubts), the Patterson-Gimlin film has been analyzed and supported by experts in fields far beyond Hollywood costume design. Anatomists, primatologists, and biomechanical specialists have studied the film and found details that align with natural primate locomotion, not a human in a suit. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology, has emphasized features like the midtarsal break in associated footprints, which is consistent with non-human primates but absent in humans. 2. Bill Munns, a *verified* renowned special effects artist, has concluded that creating such a suit was impossible with 1967 technology. The muscle movement, limb proportions, and anatomical accuracy in the film are well beyond what even Hollywood could produce at the time. If your expertise rivals his, why haven’t you presented a detailed analysis to counter his findings? 3. Your mention of John Chambers is a recycled myth. Chambers himself denied any involvement and stated that the suit seen in the film couldn’t have been created with the materials or methods available in his era. Rumors, however persistent, are not evidence. 4. If it’s 'just a guy in a baggie suit,' where is the suit? Decades later, no one has been able to produce it, including Bob Heironimus, who has inconsistently claimed to have worn it. Given the supposed simplicity of this hoax, presenting the suit should have been the easiest way to end this debate. The absence of such evidence only strengthens the film’s credibility. 5. You seem confident in your special effects background (which I’ll assume for the sake of argument), but are you also an expert in anatomy, primate biology, or biomechanics? Because those experts have consistently supported the film’s authenticity, pointing to features that go far beyond costume design. The unique gait, the proportional arm and leg lengths, and the visible muscle movement are all consistent with a real biological organism and inconsistent with a human in a suit. In short, even if you’re an expert in effects (again, I’m skeptical), this isn’t just a debate about costumes. It’s about anatomy, biomechanics, and primate locomotion-fields where the evidence overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film. If you’re 99.9% sure it’s a hoax, then I’d suggest presenting a detailed, multidisciplinary rebuttal that accounts for all of this evidence. Otherwise, your claim remains just that-an opinion.
For anyone doubting my expertise on the matter, a simple Google search of my name and a glance at my IMDb credits should suffice to establish my qualifications. My career spans decades in both practical and digital effects, and I’ve worked with some of the true legends of the field, including Rick Baker and Rob Bottin-names synonymous with groundbreaking advancements in creature design and special effects. While I may not claim the status of an all-time great, my experience places me in a strong position to assess claims related to biomechanics, anatomy, and creature design. No offense intended to Bill Munns, but referring to him as a “renowned” special effects artist is an overstatement. While he’s done some respectable work, he was never regarded as a leading figure in the field-certainly not in the same league as Baker, Bottin, or Stan Winston. These are the titans who set the gold standard, and I’ve had the privilege of learning from and collaborating with them over the course of my career. Am I an expert in biomechanics? Yes, without question. My transition from practical effects to computer-generated imagery (CGI) required me to master forward and inverse kinematics-essential tools for understanding and replicating realistic motion. As a creature designer, my job demands a deep understanding of anatomy and proportionality to ensure that everything from limb movement to muscle dynamics functions believably. As a sculptor, I’ve honed my anatomical knowledge over years of crafting characters both practically and digitally. As a rigger, I design and implement joint placements, muscle systems, and skin simulations to ensure realistic deformation and motion. Supervising projects where muscle systems must behave naturally under a character’s skin has further deepened my expertise in this area. So when I say that the so-called evidence for Bigfoot’s existence often falls apart under scrutiny-particularly when examining alleged footage or anatomical claims-it’s not just opinion; it’s grounded in decades of professional experience. Many of the features attributed to Bigfoot are inconsistent with the principles of biomechanics and anatomy as we know them. For anyone familiar with creature design, these inconsistencies stand out immediately. In short, my qualifications to critique these claims are well-documented, and my conclusions are based on a career spent bringing believable creatures to life-both practically and digitally. I remain unconvinced by the evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, not out of bias, but because the anatomy and biomechanics simply don’t add up.
I first saw this in 67 when I was 4 years old it’s right there with the Apollo moon landing on the impact it had on me I remember my father who was watching the news screening for me to come and look at this with my mother saying no he will be to scared dad won and I remember thinking Evan at that young age no way is this fake!!! And then a cold chill when I realized monster’s are real!! Been fascinated with Bigfoot ever since
For all you skeptics out there, ill say this, just look at the footage in the video, where the Sasquatch subject turns and looks back. Look at the Sasquatch back, see those two lines going down Pattys back? Thats the Psoas muscle, something you most definitely wouldnt be able to see if it were some guy in a suit. If you look at the inhanced footage, you can see a lot of different little details that would make it nearly impossible to be a suit. The way the hair is considerably shorter and lighter around the mid section, just like a chimp or silver back gorilla has. The tuft of hair going down its back, almost like a mane. Most Hollywood studios back in 1967 didnt have suit technically that advance, say nothing about some side of the road costume maker, or a couple of cowboys.
For you believers out there recognize that you want to believe this and that there's nothing that you could see at this point that would disprove it for you.
Looks like a zipper to me. The buttocks also is clearly part of the suit. You can see (from the AI enhancement and stabilization, mind you all of the above could simply be artifacts) where the pants of the suit go up into and under the buttock shell part of the costume. But go on.
Hardcore believers in the Patterson-Gimlin film are the ones who have almost created a cult-like mindset or group think,. are the most close-minded people out there. They have created an echo chamber where they simply parrot the same tired and baseless old rhetoric, buzz words and talking points over and over and over......
Those who say “it’s a man in a suit” honestly make me both angry and sick because the footage was captured in 1967 if I’m not mistaken and it was taken by two guys who so obviously didn’t have a big Hollywood budget as we did not see anything as real to what we see in the beautiful footage of the Patterson Gimlin until ten years later in a little movie called Star Wars and the character Chewbacca. The one point that makes the footage stick out as being so obviously real is the fact she has breasts and why in 1967 would two guys trying to fool the world go to the trouble of attaching female breasts. Its mind boggling to think anyone who actually sits down and see this amazing piece of film only to automatically say it’s fake..it’s utterly disrespectful and degrading to themselves to jump immediately to that conclusion
and Unicorns are also real - and Santa Clause is real - and the Tooth Fairy is real - and Leprechauns are real - and Wizards are real - and flying green witches on broomsticks are real - and monsters that live under beds are real ..... and SASQUACHES are real too !!
I think a crucial question would be were the claims made BEFORE image stabilization happened? Because the original footage was pretty rough and the likely hood of having your claim questioned would be very low due to the poor quality of the original footage. But the stabilization greatly improved the quality of the footage.
I was at a Bigfoot Convention a few years back. Bob Gimlin was there. He is getting up there in age. Everyone was shaking his hand and getting pictures with him. He was a rather humble man. He didn't look like someone that would be any part of a hoax. Supposedly Heironimus lived near Gimlin for years. The rumors were that Heironimus wanted in on the fame and money. Bob Gimlin's life was not a life of fame and fortune because of this film.
Also, they estimate after a scientific analysis, that the creature figure stood about 7 ft 6 inches, if that’s anywhere close to accurate, how many 7 and a half ft tall people were available to pull off the stunt? It’s not like they grow on trees
For over 300 million people in the United States of America Only 150 people are seven foot or taller in 2024 I've met one guy seven foot tall named Ricky Tunstall Youngstown Ohio When I was playing basketball In the gym at College of Southern Idaho
Estimate give or take 5-10 inches lol. Plenty of people being 6' 3" with a 9" costume head would make that easy. But again, an estimate based on what? A guess? There's no accurate frame of reference.
So they take a suit, that even by modern standards and technology, is astoundingly realistic, drag it out to the remote woods with a bunch of 1960s camera equipment, and the best shot they could come up with is to have their actor just casually stroll across a clearing? Why wouldn't they do something more believable or animalistic?
Probably because they were very limited in what they could do in the suit. I'm sure it was hard enough for whoever was in the suit, to just walk a straight line.
Great point. I have a theory, not a popular one. If this was a real creature (still not entirely convinced but you never know) then maybe they went extinct not long after this film. That would explain why there were no other photos or films as convincing due to a very small population or why we don't see any real good evidence today. Maybe they will find some remains one day.
I once seen the Hamms Beer bear by the river when I was fishing. Even though I didn’t have a camera, when I looked with my own eyes it was dark and grainy. Very strange phenomenon. Everything surrounding the Hamms Bear was crystal clear. I don’t have proof, but I do expect most to believe me.
Regardless of how much this footage is enhanced, it's just too poor quality to determine any real details that prove if it's real or fake. For me. However, that look back... the way whatever it is looks back and keeps moving, then continues on its way would be a very difficult thing to accomplish in any kind of suit without it looking unnatural. It's an interesting piece of footage
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I completely understand where you're coming from about the quality of the footage-it can be tough to draw definitive conclusions. The look back is definitely one of the most intriguing aspects, and I agree, pulling that off in a suit without looking unnatural would be incredibly challenging. I'm glad you find the footage interesting-it’s always great to hear different perspectives. 🙂
i agree. I dont think i believe in bigfoot as a flesh and blood creature. But there are some pieces of evidence that even a bigot would dismiss. This is probably one of those pieces of evidence
Your not noticing the mechanics of her walk. She is doing something you or I or anyone else for that matter cant do. Zoom in and try and freeze it, at the right time, the sole of her trailing foot as soon as it appears. Notice how close to the ground her toes still are and at the same time look at how her knee is bent. Now you bend your knee the same degree. Bet you hundred dollars your toes are several inches from the ground. I've tried it myself and was shocked how far my foot was from the ground versus patties foot just an inch or so from the ground.
Exactly. Bob not having the suit or not knowing what material the suit was made out of is a ridiculous reason to say the man is lying. It’s a man in a suit
Alaskan here, they are very real, just go hiking north of Fairbanks and you're guaranteed an encounter. Just make sure you're armed, the polar bears and grizzlies have been breeding this new type of bear that we've been seeing around that's really really big, and they are not very friendly as far as bears go. Also I found the wolverines to be a bit more aggressive up there too. Also, it's not uncommon to run into wolf packs of over 200 wolves. Just some things to be mindful of when you head up there. Make sure you take plenty of kit and maybe bring a local guide. Have fun and stay safe 🙂 Nature is awesome 🙂 This documentary is fantastic, thank you for this video 🙂
So why in the days of universal access to video cameras, smart phones and also multiple cameras placed in the wild to capture footage of wild animals has no one come up with any footage of a big foot. Or why does no one have a body of a big foot. Why has no one ever shot a big foot.
there probably is a lot of footage, and recently there have been captures on film, problem is the ridicule that comes with it, as well as in the moment, even with a bitching phone cam, it hard to get a look at something like that without alerting it and the last thing you want is to piss off an unknown animal.
Try this. Take your kid to the park. Put your phone in your pocket. Tell your kid to hide behind a tree at say 30 yards away. Tell your kid to start running after a random period of waiting. The kid can vary the direction to make it more realistic. Take out your phone and try to take a photo or video as soon as you notice your kid. Without fail your photo/video will come out bad. You will take several seconds to start recording. Your images will be blurry, because due to the small size you will either start zooming in, increasing the effect of shaking or you will digitally zoom in. Either while recording or in post. Please try this experiment. Use different cameras. Go to the woods (much darker). Now add the fact that your very first thought when seeing a Bigfoot is not going to be "I must record!", but rather "WTH???" There you have your answer. Do it. Try it out. Convince yourself. Alternatively, research into what equipment it takes to take a good photo of a bird. It is very hard to do. Ps. I am a research scientist into a field that involves a lot of optical sensing and have been for 20 years now.
That line where the legs connect to the butt makes it look like a costume because it appears like the pants go up under the torso section and the butt of the creature moves very little as it walks.
My question is "WHY?" also. Why have all subsequent films/videos/etc been so grainy/shaky/far away? Most of them are so bad they're practically worthless. A blurry blob moving around on that mountain peak over there is no proof of anything. Technology has come so far since 1967. Why can't anyone get a video that's at least this good? That's suspicious right there...
That's a great question, and it's something many skeptics and researchers alike have pondered. There are a few reasons why the Patterson-Gimlin film stands out even today: 1. Environmental Conditions: The Pacific Northwest, where many sightings are reported, is often heavily wooded or mountainous, making it difficult to capture clear footage. Dense forests, poor lighting, and long distances between people and potential subjects result in blurry or shaky recordings. 2. Camera Technology of the Time: Back in 1967, Roger Patterson used a high-quality 16mm camera, which captures far more detail than the modern smartphones or basic camcorders often used in recent sightings. Many recent videos are filmed on phones with digital zoom, which degrades image quality. 3. Unpredictability of Sightings: Bigfoot sightings are typically brief and unexpected, giving people little time to prepare for a steady shot. The Patterson-Gimlin encounter was unique because they had the camera ready and were relatively close to the subject. 4. Skepticism and Hoaxes: As you mentioned, many recent videos don’t compare to the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is why they’re often dismissed as hoaxes or misidentifications. Ironically, this skepticism has created a higher bar for acceptable evidence, making it even harder for any footage to stand out. The Patterson-Gimlin film remains unmatched because of a combination of proximity, equipment, and circumstances that are hard to replicate. Whether that’s 'suspicious' or just a unique moment in history is still up for debate!
Patterson was on horseback, covering way more area. People on foot are at a disadvantage, and bf might be sufficiently used to keeping out of sight from humans.
Probably the only reason we have Patty on film is because of the HORSES. Robert and Cabin are probably sick of me posting the same thing over and over, but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel every time I comment. So here it goes… Patty heard and smelled the horses, but not the men. The smell of the 3 horses would over powered the human scent. She may have known what horses were. She certainly would not be afraid of them. She may of seen and smelled wild horses before. If so, they would not have been wearing horseshoes. So in her curiosity she waited for the horses to come into view rounding the big fallen tree. Seeing humans on them, she started to leave the scene, walking away from them. The farther away she got, the faster she walked. When Bob Gimlin rode his horse across the creek, Patty heard the horseshoes on the creek rocks and turned to look back - thus creating the most famous picture ever of a Sasquatch. If everyone looking for Squatch used horses to find them, we might have another film. As for "Why?", I think it's the Firesticks idea. Like the native Indians of the forest who saw the first Europeans, Squatch have surely seen humans use firesticks to kill animals. Like the Indians, this image of humans holding deadly weapons must somehow get passed down from one Squatch to another. Since they cannot know what a camera does, they might equate the idea of humans holding something to the idea of it being a weapon. So when humans hold a camera or phone in their tiny human hands the Squatch retreat from view. This fear of weapons/cameras could point to them being some type of relic human. Because animals do not seem to share this trait of being so elusive that we cannot get good photos of them. They seem to think more like humans than like apes. The question then becomes HOW does this knowledge get passed along from one Squatch to another? If they do not have a writing system, then perhaps they have a language system like humans, to spread these warnings with groups of their own kind. If so, that could mean they are closer to humans than apes. Which could explain why they are intelligent enough to elude our cameras.
This film was shaky to till somebody enhanced it. The answer to your question is "pixelation". The farther you zoom in the more pixelated it is with digital cameras. Pixels actually do not capture as much information is film does. While there are high end cameras today with good resolution and lenses most people do not have those cameras. They normally carry around el cheapos that have too much pixelation.
Great info to consider, especially the side-by-side comparison. However, it should be noted that in the frame of the PG film at 8:08, the image of Patty has been digitally altered or manipulated. Notice how the background and other elements along the edge are a bit out of focus, but most of the fur is super sharp and crystal clear. I've never seen any version of the film that has that much clarity. It almost looks like it was artificially sharpened (which can produce unintended artifacts) or even that fur texture has been added to the image. I'd like some explanation of the image used.
Man oh man , i've seen several ufo/uap over my tenure on the earth , visited a haunted church/cemetary where the ground shook beneath our feet and graves were illuminated . But to me this is a dude in a costume ... i want it to be the real deal but c'mon ?
wheres the Bigfoot after so many years ?,none on trail cams ,killed by cars or hunters ,found dead in the woods ,Bigfoot fanatics come up with all sorts of excuses as to why not
It looks more like a suit now than it ever did. Expecting Bob to give you a receipt for a suit is hilarious. He said they gave him a suit to wear and helped him into it. He never said he bought it himself.
@robertcoggeshall3071 - Wrong. There is more than one suit. You just saw him wearing a suit and you say "there is no suit"? You guys are so invested in something that has zero credible evidence and you ignore any evidence to dismiss the nonsense. Don't you find it interesting that the reddish suit is filmed with a newer camera and at 10xs closer range minimum and it shows an obvious suit? If the original film were done this close, you would see an obvious suit as well. It was planned that way. It was the last day he was getting paid to search for Bigfoot. Everything about this film was fake. Especially the footprints. Those are literally wooden cut out shoes. No animal leaves footprints that crisp and clean.
@@redfaux74 heironimus can't keep his own story straight, lol. Mark of an obvious and discredited liar. Patterson picked the crispest footprints to cast- they showed great variation, and people examining them couldn't find a trace of a hoax. A female suit would never be made, and it doesn't matter what camera you use, a suit will be instantly see. Patty is definitely real
Because they don't exist? Now that every 9 year old is walking around with a high def camera in their pocket, we still don't have any credible photos or footage? People have captured some extremely rare stuff on their smart phones, but still not one clear photo or video of Bigfoot.
I'm a skeptic mainly because I find the lack of physical evidence after centuries of European presence on this continent to be improbable if such a creature exists. That said, I have never thought the Patterson film looks fake. If Bigfoot was or is real, then that's what it looks. The footage is fairly convincing to me, but footage alone is just not enough and is not a certainty. High resolution fames and even AI enhanced frames have only helped it for the most part. The fur doesn't look fake at all and looks way better than any fake suit or special effect I've seen from that time.
I'm 35 seconds in to the video, but long have known the answer. The supposed 'suit' never saw the light of day, because it belonged to a real living creature. Neither Bob Heironimus, or anyone else came forward with the alleged suit. This is reminiscent of the TV ad from the 80's "Where's the beef". On top of that Heironimus never could provide evidence for the 1000 dollars he was promised for playing bigfoot. Nevertheless, I'll watch the entire video, as it looks quite well done.
Its a suit, and a bad one at that. I've noticed in the whole video its all blurry. Then at the right moment all steady for the great turn and reveal, so staged. Thats a man walk, not an animal.
I have two more reasons to no longer believe: 1) Everyone now carries a HD camera in their pocket and has done so for several years now. But what do we have to show for it? More blurry pictures. Absolutely nothing more convincing than any of the decades old pics out there. 2) Time. It's been a long time since the PG film. Since that time thousands of people have searched the forest hoping to be the one who finds proof of this elusive creature. Again, all these people have come up with is more blurry pictures of some "unidentified" animal.
If this video is correct, it could have just died out by now. Plenty of species have gone extinct, especially after humans have expanded further and industrialised.
I hope this video is satirical....you understand both men's entire family and friends all happily admit they set this all up. Even the MAN WHO MADE AND SOLD THE SUIT told everyone it's his suit.... I cannot understand why you can't see it and will not accept it, unless of course you're making the video for profit or making it as a half assed gag joke
John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the "it was a hoax" narrative, but let’s unpack your points with some evidence and reasoning. First, the claim that “the man who made and sold the suit” came forward is highly problematic. Bob Heironimus and Philip Morris are often cited in these stories, but their accounts fall apart under scrutiny. For one, Morris has never provided the alleged suit, which would be a significant artifact if it truly existed. After all, producing the suit would be the ultimate smoking gun to conclusively debunk the Patterson-Gimlin film. Yet, here we are, 57 years later, with no suit and no verifiable evidence of its existence. Strange, isn’t it? Second, let’s address the suit itself. Multiple costume and special effects experts, including Bill Munns, have analyzed the film and concluded that creating such a realistic and anatomically accurate suit in 1967 would have been virtually impossible. The muscle movement, limb proportions, and gait displayed in the film don’t match what you’d expect from a person in a costume-especially one allegedly created by someone without access to the advanced materials or technology available even decades later. It’s telling that no one has been able to convincingly replicate the footage, despite modern CGI and prosthetic technology. Third, the "entire family and friends" claim about admitting to a hoax is a common oversimplification. Yes, stories circulate about people claiming to have been involved in the hoax, but these accounts often lack corroboration or fall apart when details are examined. For instance, the various “confessions” often contradict each other, raising serious doubts about their validity. Finally, dismissing my video as either satire or a “half-assed gag joke” feels more like an attempt to avoid engaging with the actual evidence presented. I encourage you to look into the detailed analyses of the Patterson-Gimlin film, from experts in biomechanics to anthropologists who specialize in primates. These analyses raise compelling questions about whether this could realistically be a hoax, especially given the limitations of the time. In short, the hoax explanation has far more holes than the film itself. Instead of relying on hearsay and unverified claims, I invite you to dive into the evidence and ask yourself why this footage continues to baffle experts over half a century later. If it were as simple as “a guy admitted to making a suit,” this debate wouldn’t still be happening.
Bob was just jealous that he didn't see the sasquatch. He just wants the fame. Morris was just the same and just as sad. Greg Long should have been sued for defamation. Overall this was a real sasquatch that was filmed. I've seen several sasquatch and this is how they walk.
@@Scott-se9yl, I never actually saw the one in '95, it followed me out of the woods at around 0300. Too dark to see very much. It was about 40 feet away judging by the foot falls. The one in 2021 was at least 250 yards away in an open, mown field. I was riding my mountain bike, when I topped a small hill and it was standing out in the field. I watched it for over a minute and it never moved. I started riding again, keeping it in sight the whole time. There was an old outbuilding on the property and I lost eye contact with it. When the spot where it was standing came back into view it was gone, it just vanished.
I'm still skeptical, but neither will I outright dismiss this one either. It seems obvious to dismiss this as a man in a suit, but so far the evidence for this is unreliable at best. Three different accounts of where the suit came from means that at least two people are lying. The recreation, whilst looks decent, just doesn't sell the look and part of that I think was due to where and when the image was taken. For the recreation of the suit, I would say going to a location that looks roughly similar, around same time of day, with both a modern and period accurate cameras, and film it then and only then to get close to the same effect and look as that shine off "Patty", plus the distance from the camera, can help decide if its real or fake. As for the beast in general, I have thought about it and have a theory to explain a few sightings. It is a real animal, but one we know of already and that you wouldn't expect to encounter in the woods. These are actual chimps and apes. Many people, at least when looking at the total population of the US overall and just how many people their are, probably own one exotic pet. From Tigers to Chimps, to Snakes and Crocs. At one point or another, particularly wealthy or well off individuals would pick up a unique pet and return home, only to release them into the wild once they became too difficult to handle. But either not wanting to get in trouble and fined (or even jailed), or worried their former pets would be put down, they secretly released them into the wilderness. This might explain why their is such a small population relative to the size of the US whilst also fluctuating in terms of sightings and encounters. Put simply, as laws were enforced when it came to exotic pets after a series of incidents and rumors, efforts made to limit the purchase and allowing these exotic species here in the US ended up indirectly reducing the number of actual "BF" encounters in terms of dealing with known animals. Most encounters are brief, unexpected, and rarely result in footprints being found, hair samples, or any sort of DNA. This doesn't explain all, but some encounters maybe more real then one realises.
Unlike the creature discussed here, Dolly Parton has little feet. When asked about this, she replied, _"I've got little feet because nothing grows in the shade."_
It's funny that a lot of people think that there's no way the PG film could be fake but two years later the moon landing film could have easily been faked.
Yeah except that that one party has billions and billions of dollars and unlimited possibilities to make you believe their lie and cover it up if the moon landing was indeed faked while the PG-Film was filmed by average guys where a few thousand buck would have been gained and a news article at best. I’m not saying the film is real, there is arguments against it and a lot of arguments for it. The footage speaks for the authenticity the fact that it seems impossible to exist without being shot or found otherwise speaks against the authenticity.
Lies? It's obviously a man in a suit. That footage has been screwed with so much the original doesn't even exist anymore. Is this a troll? Gotta admit though, these comments are hilarious.
Ah, yes, the 'common sensical' argument-always airtight. Zoological experts must have overlooked their textbooks when they failed to declare that 'it looks like a suit' constitutes scientific analysis. If only Bigfoot had considered the feelings of zoology before taking that stroll in 1967.
@@smashtoad so you are aware that people had the same attitude towards gorillas till they were discovered, why is bigfoot, a possible ape species so hard to grasp? and yeah, like cabininthewoods517 said, you really didnt give any real argument as to why its fake.
@@RobertJackson-mo4es yet RFK Junior had no trouble finding a dead baby bear as roadkill and had no trouble taking it to New York city and dumping it in central Park. Dead bears are found on the side of the road all the time , your claim is just nonsense. I grew up, wanting so bad to believe in Bigfoot, unfortunately the more I dug into the subject, the more I became convinced that there’s no such thing as a Bigfoot.
@@RobertJackson-mo4es But there are bones of prehistoric bears. Big Foot didn't just show up in the present day. He had to have ancestors going back. Human bones have been found dating back several thousand years. But no Big Foot skeletons. They need to procreate, forage for food, eat and poop. Yet, nothing. There's bear scat in the woods. Bear fur. Bear claw marks on trees and logs.
I have been fascinated with this film since I was a little kid in the late 1970s. I still don't know if it's real or a brilliant hoax but I can't get enough of it. It's such an interesting short film regardless of whether it's real or fake.
I really like the impeccably clear still with the Bigfoot animation superimposed over it. No, I'm serious. It's much easier to watch than the clumsy original footage. Who did that?
An expert says "Impossible to make a suit that good in 1967". The original Planet of the Apes was filmed between May 21 and August 10, 1967. And those ape suits look more realistic than bigfoot.
No they don't. They had to clothe the apes because they couldn't hide the seams. There's no directional hair growth. It wasn't "an expert." It was leading experts. The guy that made those suits you allege are more realistic stated that if someone made a suit as seen on Patty they were 20 years ahead of the best effects experts in Hollywood-and they were and are the best in the world.
There’s actually an episode of the little rascals titled Bear Shooters from 1930 that features a gorilla suit that looks pretty darn convincing especially for that time so there goes that suit theory blown out the window decades earlier just saying.
@ call it what you want either way and I am not saying I believe or disbelieve the authenticity of the creature but still don’t see any evidence here that a 6 foot person in a suit can be ruled out.
I'd like to see a breakdown on what the individual in the suit would've had to look like. Wouldn't it basically need to be a gigantic female body builder or a true Amazonian, and even then one with disproportionately long arms and a very unusual gait?
@@_MikeJon_ The suit would already need to be almost unrealistically elaborate with the visible muscle/tendon movement, now you're suggesting it also convincingly adds a ton of mass, long arms, and an unusual gait to the person inside? And they were still able to walk fluidly with this incredibly bulky suit?
@@ryanbartunek1072 You're repeating those claims based off of others saying it after they watched an AI enhancement and altered video. Nothing about what you just claimed is fact. It's conjecture.
@@_MikeJon_ ...have you watched the PG film? Everything I said about muscle mass, long arms, unusual gait, and fluid movement is VERY clearly visible in the unedited film. As for the muscle movement, you can still see that in the unedited film, sure it's not VERY clearly visible like everything else lol, but the thigh still appears to jiggle.
45 years later, and almost everyone carries a phone that takes good pictures and videos, and this is still "the best" ???? No one ever stumbled upon a dead one or bigfoot bones ??
To me it's a hoax. Lets assume it was "big foot", then why didn't it attack the camera person or why it kept walking like nothing? The walk is human like to me. It's fake!!!
Like I always say; if the Patterson Bigfoot film was faked, then it would have been reproduced many, many times. Yet it has not been recreated once in the past 57 years! Critics can talk the talk, but they can never walk the walk ( or gait, lol ).
exactly. it hasnt been recreated and never will be. if bigfoot was real the hundreds of people with cell phones in the woods would have gotten a video by now, if two cowboys on horses can do it, anybody can. bob heironimus looks and walks like it.
It's never been filmed again either so your point is equally as moot.
@@_MikeJon_yet the so-called suit has never been accurately replicated even with rewards over 6 figures
@@boogie1434 Planet of the Apes 1968
U know
As someone who's worn costumes w/little visibility & lack of peripheral vision, what always surprised me about the P/G footage is how Patty strides along so non-chalantly, as if she's been walking in her body all her life. If this somebody who just put on a suit, they'd be walking rather awkwardly, possibly tripping over brush, twigs & stones on the ground. They would've had to practice dozens of times or a preemptively prepare a clear path & know exactly where to walk. Have you ever tried to walk through a forest w/o a path? It's rough, cumbersome & awkward. Now imagine walking through that same forest w/o any peripheral vision, limited visibility inside a "gorilla suit"!
Yes! And she's walking in a creek-bed, which would have been very difficult for a human to navigate even without a suit on.
Also, why go out of your way to make it female?
Especially if you had a glass eye, lol. 😂
@@Lindormking89 Also why go hundreds of miles and all the expense to Bluff Creek in California, when they lived in Yakima, WA, where Roger did most of his outdoor research, when reports of Bigfoots were coming out of Mt. Saint Helen area.
Plus you have to fill out a suit, somehow, that is 7'9", yet not appear as a smaller human inside it, give the impression of weighing 800 pounds or much more, and has real muscle movement underneath, controlled, by.. what?
Patty was the real thing- a female bf. Both the suit needed and tracks faked at the site were impossible. She has muscle all over, and a female suit showing it is laughable. The tracks were seen both before and after the film, so it eliminates patterson as a hoaxer.
Agreed.
Giving the Suit 'Bewbs' is an odd idea and I think that makes it more credible.
@@RM-306 never would have been done at that time. Plus the 2 involved were cowboys of the John Wayne era. Zero chance it was a female suit.
The suit they show is a reddish color. Its not even the same color as the Patterson/Gimlin film
@@BlackAdder1970 yes, the awe inspiring teddy bear bf suit.
Bob H's claims are a joke. When asked where it was filmed he originally said Washington, then when he found out it was in California, he guessed where and was hundreds of miles off. He changed his guess several times and the closest he's guessed (now that we all know where the filmsite is) is Weichtpec, which is about 40 miles off. A horseman/outdoorsman being 40 miles off after several guesses over the years is very telling. When they asked Gimlin of the location, he was only about 10o yards off. Another issue is that Phillip Morris says he made the suit, and Bob Heironimous confirms that it was a Phillip Morris suit. The issue is that Bob claims the suit was waders with football shoulder pads, a two piece, but Phillip Morris has a totally different description of the suit. Phillip Morris DID sell a gorilla suit at the time, but it was for like kids parties, NOT studio quality. They actually tried to bury that recreation you showed. I tell people that debating the authenticity of the PG film is understandable, but it was definitely NOT Bob Heronimous.
Only the truly gullible believe heironimus, or accept it because the pg film must be fake, in their minds.
Bob's lips are too thin, he is shorter than Patty, and he came out fifty years later to make a few bucks.
Wrong.....Wrong.......and, yep........Wrong again lol 😆
Look at the studio suits of the time. They were so crappy.
@@barbrice721 ....The POTA suits were impeccably great
You're delusional
Just to play devils advocate, in my opinion what does point to the PG film being a hoax is that it has been fifty plus years since the film was made. During that time the number of people looking for Sasquatch has increased thousands of times. Yet in those 50 years we have not gotten ONE bit of film that matches the Patterson/Gimlin film in detail and clarity. With all the people looking for Sasquatch, with all the trail cams, with all the technology we have at our disposal....you would think we would have quite a few "Patterson/Gimlin" films out there.
Exactly. There should be hundreds of these videos around if the animal is real. Where are all the other videos?
Or at least found some bigfoot bones..
Probably next to the many many videos of the elusive snow leopard. We know snow leopards exist, but how many people have actually seen one?
*_"If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs."_*
~~ Groucho Marx
To play devil advocate to your devil advocate..... consider this;
In 1950's, they discovered Mountain gorillas were actually real.
In 1967, there was way way more rural and uninhabited area than there is now.
I think its quite possible our species saw the tail end of the existence of what is classified as Gigantopithecus.
Native Americans have names for them. In the NW, they talk about something called 'Skookum'. The direct translation is 'Skunk Ape'.
In my early 20's, I talked with a hi way patrolman that lived in the neighborhood I grew up in. He was an outdoorsman and came across footprints. Plaster casts were made. I saw the plaster casts one day when I visited.
What struck me was, the lines and ridges in the sole of the foot were visible. The wrinkles and lines on the sole were just like on a human foot. However the print didn't have much of an arch.
I was a doubter up until I saw that footprint. Far too much detail to produce something like that for zero money or payoff. Or maybe he knew a guy with a size 30 shoe (guessing) and had him walk barefoot out there.
I think its possible that we as a species glimpsed the very tail end of the existence of another species.
Which would explain why none are seen anymore.
Patty is real. I would advise anyone to look at Thinker Thunker’s work. The female Bigfoot in the film has arms that are equal length as her legs as well as her torso. This is a very distinct measurement that is seen in a few others captured on film. Human legs are always 20 to 30% longer than our arms. And for the skeptics that say he had arm extensions, then his elbows would have been in the wrong place. The elbows in the film are clearly in the center of the arm where they should be. you can also see the muscles underneath the hair, especially when her leg hits the ground. The mid tarsal break that Dr. Meldrum chronicled is also seen in the film and she lifts the forward half of her foot up in the air before stepping down. This is impossible with a fake foot. That same mid tarsal break is also seen in the Provo Canyon footage just before the creature steps down. Then there’s the gait of the walk. human legs when walking no matter if we are wearing heels, barefoot, big clown shoes, etc. always has the same percentage of lift. I can’t remember the percentage off hand. But the real films show that they walk differently, lifting their leg to a 90° bend in the knee. University studies have tried to teach people to walk this way and capture it on film and it takes a lot of work and it still isn’t correct.I would also advise anyone to take a look at M. K. Davis’ work. He has slowed down the video, stabilized it and zoomed in more than anyone else has been able to achieve. The face is clearly not a mask, you can see the fine details. RIP Robert Patterson. Bob Gimlin is a joy to listen to. He has never changed his story and you can feel the truth of his words as he talks. One of my favorite things he has said is when he first laid eyes upon it that day, his first thought was, “My God they are real.”
Thanks for such a detailed and thoughtful comment! I really appreciate you bringing up the arm-to-leg ratios, the mid-tarsal break, and the gait-those are such crucial points that skeptics often overlook. Thinker Thunker and Dr. Meldrum’s work have definitely contributed a lot to this discussion, and I agree, Bob Gimlin’s consistency over the years is remarkable. It’s great to see someone so passionate and informed about this topic-your insights really add value to the conversation!
There is a hernia on the right lower thigh is very obvious for anyone the wishes to observe. Thinker Thunker is spot on with scientific evidence.
@@cabininthewoods517 OK so I think I’ve mixed you up with another channel. Sorry about that. This is the video I was referring to in my last comment. I thought for sure this was your family. Lol. ruclips.net/video/DnILp5TnEuo/видео.htmlsi=Wbt62fd6KvfNSaTE
@@cabininthewoods517 apparently RUclips deleted the comment that I made in reply to your comment. You’re probably all sorts of confused now. I replied that I appreciated your response and I asked if you were the guy who filmed the UFO flying over his cabin in the woods while filming the Milky Way. and apparently I was wrong about that, you guys are two separate channels. Anyway, this Bigfoot video is amazing and you’re doing a great job and more people need to get the truth out there. I’ve been researching UFO and Bigfoot stuff for many years. Take care, brother. Oh, and I learned the other day from a lady who says she does mindspeak with them that their real name is AYOLYN and that they prefer not to be called Bigfoot because it sounds derogatory. Not sure if that’s true or not, but it would be pretty cool if it is true. Anyway, take care.
I wanna add to that if I could and I think its something TT should clarify (or maybe even he hasn't noticed) but its not the 90 degree knee bend in the leading leg that is important because after all, we can do a 90 degree knee bend in our leading leg. It's the trailing leg with the knee bend that we absolutely cannot pull off even with practice period. Notice her trailing heel is straight up and is an inch or so from the ground but yet her knee is bent at an angle. If I were to bend my trailing knee at that angle my foot is far from the ground. I would have to squat walk to even come close and that is not our natural movement but it is with patty and she is not squat walking.
Stand up and bend your knee and see how quickly your foot leaves the ground. This is not the case with Patty because her tibia and fibula is more towards the center of her foot to stabilize more weight and that is all the reason why her foot has barely left the ground when her knee is bent.
I only come across your channel just yesterday. I must confess i am enjoying your bigfoot videos immensely. Keep up the good work sir.
Thank very much for the encouragement!
I'm 99,9% sure that it is not a person in a suit...😊
It certainly appears you’re correct! 🙂
@@cabininthewoods517 I do have one question......are horses normally spooked so easily........if you watch the film and hear the story it is mentioned the horse got spooked and moved around so much Roger Patterson fell off his horse.............would the horse been spooked if it was someone in a suit.... I assume horses would get nervious near Bears and Big Cats , Wolfs as well in the Forest and a Bigfoot.
It's still the best so-called proof of a bigfoot. Sad!
I'm 100 percent certain it's a suit.
Their studio is nice too.
I’m 100% certain that it’s a dude in a suit. Because Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
It's a suit, though.
You can clearly see it. Look at the horizontal line at the upper leg.
It's hair. You wouldn't see that at that distance filmed. Like the idiotic zipper.
@@robertcoggeshall3071
You can't see anything... it's filmed with a camera from the early sixties 😂
@@NLGermaan it was shown in theaters. Of course you could see it.
Did you bother to check to see if large primates, say a gorilla for example, have that same hair line? I did and they do. The leading special effects artists of the time stated that a suit with the features seen in PG were beyond capability. Hate to break it to you but your "expertise" doesn't supersede theirs. It's a real creature.
@ghandb
There are no large primates in the United States or Canada other than H. sapiens.
Show me some scientifically proven evidence and not some eyewitness reports or blurry videos.
That's not evidence.
Three things make me lean toward "Patty" being real. 1. If this is a costume. It is better than Hollywood could make at the time. Just look at Planet of the Apes. That was state of the art at the time. 2. Why would they go to the trouble of making it female? That would be much more work and complicated to do. 3. The musclature. It is obvious if you look at the calf muscle the definition is big and heavy, and well defined like a body builder. That wasn't possible to do with a costume in 1967.
Forget at the time, it looks more real than anything I've seen since too
@@Aprilme2 It was a literal recreation of the William Roe encounter.
@@GilbertSyndromeonly that both were female. As Lou Costello used to say, It's got to be one or the other!
@@robertcoggeshall3071 The William Roe encounter plays out exactly like the PGF. The PGF is a literal recreation of it. One major argument from supporters is always the "why would a hoaxer put breasts on the suit" line... Well he put breasts on it because that detail was ripped off the William Roe sighting.
@@GilbertSyndrome there were 2 armed witnesses on horseback vs 1 hiking. Roe looked through bushes to see his creature, while patty is striding in plain view after getting up from behind a log. Different circumstances completely. Roe bf means absolutely nothing.
I saw one along the trinity river in California in 1991. Before cell phones. No pics, no vids, nobody but myself there to see it. But because skeptics weren’t there it means it’s not true. That’s fine. I know what I saw and I’m more informed because of it.
I have had contact with non-human beings,
and know where you are coming from.
/
@ Me too.
Thanks for sharing that, very cool!
@@zen4men Aliens too. In the mountains at nite and alone. Scared the crap out of me but what can you do? Miles from a road in the deep black forest. Twice one nite I saw the gray one and then the black triangle craft came down and a bunch of really ugly ones surrounded me. The rest is text book. Just like you read that happens to others except that I’m not able to block the memories. Or rather, they didn’t bother to do the whole memory wipe thing. I’ll never go back into those woods alone again. One day I found a bunch of trees with human bones, feathers and old saddle blankets in them. I found an old powder horn with the initials J.B. Cut and burnt into it. Lots of gold dust. Too many bears and too many scary things in those trees.
@@AdamSander-b3b🙄💊💊
If it's a geezer in a suit, then why do we not have better Hoaxes in this modern age? Suits are better now so you would think we would have tons of bigfoot videos that rival Patty, but we don't. The mystery continues....
Excellent point!
Furthermore why did this so called suit used in the patty film never to be used or seen again. Doesn’t add up as this so called suit would have costs a ton to make it look that real to be only used once with little to no money being made off for said hoaxed vid. 🍻
Trawl the Internet
There are loads of these videos
None are conclusive
And with the original film your all in the emperors new clothes syndrome
Where are the nipples?
We don’t even have a Hollywood movie Bigfoot that looks that good .
How much money would have made the creator of this costume at Hollywood, working on different projects? And remains anonymous without any other new costumes?
Yes, indeed. If his wife could make that costume, she was wasting her time not going to work for movies.
@@toweypat Whose wife??
@@ioann235 The suit was supposedly used in a sci-fi movie, can't remember the name, the mask was made by Wah Chang and was used in Star Trek. The pictures are out there if you dig around.
@GilbertSyndrome Patterson costume has NO TOO LONG OR TOO DENSE HAIRS. All the other costumes I have seen have 4-5 inch long hairs and the hairs are so dense that you can't see anything under, no shape no contours no demarcation no contractions nothing, they are made to hide as much as possible and you end up watching kinda the overall shape of a gorilla🙂
In all these posts, nobody points to a similar costume showing anatomical details, used in some movies.
@@ioann235 The suit was modified by Roger from existing parts, by all accounts. I'm pretty sure you can see the mask if you type "Wah Chang Bigfoot" on Google. Janos Prohaska supposedly glued the hair onto the suit.
So your only "evidence" is the lack of evidence? Well, as a lawyer, allow me to explain a basic principle.
'A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself'
Now you grab a cup of moonshine, pop on your tinfoil hat, and mull that over.
“So your only 'evidence' is the lack of evidence?" Not quite. As a lawyer, I’d have expected you to review all the material before delivering your closing statement. Note to self: avoid your firm if I ever need to win. 🙂
@cabininthewoods517 my firm would never have taken such a frivolous, unfounded case. Passed on first review, just like your ridiculous video.
@digby3618 you must be a ambulance chaser one.
My friend, don't ever try to argue (or even reason) with these people. They are willing to believe literally anything.
In all these years, with all the advancements in technology, not one piece of credible evidence or any legitimate film of "bigfoot". Even with stationary cameras that capture all kinds of wildlife every day. But over 50 years ago, some guy wandering around in the woods with a camera, just happens to film this giant creature, that's never been seen again (with any proof).
This same guy (even according to this video) was also struggling financially.. And just happens to hit the lottery, with the film of the century..
It definitely checks out ✅
🙄
@@justme-ti1rh *an ambulance chaser.
And no, quite the opposite, in fact.
I have seen Hollywood make up experts that have reviewed this film and not one said it was a human inside of fur suit. I have seen experts review the bone structure that is shown with this figure walking and not one said it is a human gait or a gait that humans can imitate. It appears this is a video that is a real unknown figure.
@@w.l7515 But have you watched Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005 ,on RUclips 🤣?
@@w.l7515 What Hollywood makeup experts were they? Can you name any or are you just randomly making stuff up?
@@GilbertSyndrome as far as I know, only Bill Munns thinks it’s genuine. Rick Baker, Stan Winston both think it’s a guy in a suit
@@w.l7515 there are scientists right here on RUclips saying it is a man in a suit. If bigfoot existed, they would also die, and the one piece of evidence that inarguably can't be faked, a body, is the one piece of evidence we don't have. Coincidence?
@vin1fx726 Exactly. And Munns was fired from many of the films he worked on because his effects weren't up to par.
The enhanced footage should always be prefaced with a note that the hair and muscles are what a computer program interprets should be in the pg footage.
Exactly
Yeah but the sheen of the fur and SOME muscle groups can be discerned from the moving original footage.
@ there is no footage of muscle in the original pg footage, my problem is the enhanced video being presented as original footage, not weather or not Bigfoot exists.
The muscles, boobs, and toes were always there. Just made clearer now.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 no, the muscles, boobs and hair may have been there on that day but they don’t exist on the film.
It moved with too much fluidity to be a man in a suit. It turned at the waist slightly to look back.
They have a domed head like a primate so more jaw muscle can attach to the head. The draw back to this is they can't turn their neck like us because of the muscle mass and that is why she is turning more at the waist than her neck.
Bob H said he wore a football helmet under the mask to help make the head look so big. Bob H had one eye. I find it hard to believe he could see clear enough through one eye mask hole, supposedly over a helmet (creates distance from eye to eye opening), and not trip even once during that film. Costume aside, I'd love to see someone attempt that scenario and walk effortlessly through a sandy wash and into the woods.
The creature sure has a natural look to it and moves very fluidly, If it was faked whoever did it deserves an academy award.
He claimed to wear football pads on his shoulders, not a helmet
@@Zeppelin927he's said a hundred things, including a helmet.
@ I have heard on more than one account in this discussion him saying he wore a helmet (and the pads).
Patterson was a narcissistic individual....
The more I see it, the more convinced it is undeniably real. Working with zoo animals and wild animals for decades, I know the difference between a jack-a-lope and a snow shoe hare. Having worked with African mammals, including gorillas and chimps, and all manner of reptiles and bats, I know how intelligent even the smallest snake is, and how good they all are at staying hidden as much as possible.
@@mikefetterman6782 Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005,on RUclips 🤣
@@rayoleary7581means nothing, since they believe the bogus heironimus claims.
@@rayoleary7581means nothing, no credibility. These 🤡s believe the bogus heironimus story.
@@rayoleary7581it's bs, supporters of bogus heironimus claim.
@robertcoggeshall3071 who cares
Well done. One of the better explanations of “Patty is real” videos I’ve seen.
Thank you, I appreciate that. 🙂
Yes, very good
The idea that anyone made a female suit is reaching miles.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 The idea that any of us men that have dealt with females would ever try to impersonate one is ridiculous.
I do find it curious that the female bigfoot was able to go the entire video without bitching about something,, Maybe it was conveyed in that "what's your problem" look she gave
@@danielmart7940I think she was in shopping mode.
There’s actually an interesting backstory I heard on the “Patty” case. It was either on Buckeye Bigfoot or Dixie Cryptid. And obviously, I have no way of validating this story, but basically, some government agents or paid hunters were sent to Northern California to “eliminate” a family or a group of Sasquatch-Patty’s family. Not sure why it was a problem, or if the Bigfoot were threatening some government operations out there or something. But they needed it “taken care of”. They sent in what was essentially a small militia. Long story short, it was a brutal killing, all of the sasquatch, young and old, were shot and hunted, and had their corpses taken away. Patty somehow survived and was the lone remaining member of the clan, I guess she had hid effectively. The famous Patty tape was filmed supposedly the very next day, or possibly the same day, showing her distressed, not sure what to do, and completely bewildered yet not really in any rush to escape, or seemingly THAT threatened-because she’s elderly and couldnt run any faster. She was the head matriarch of her clan. People say how fast Bigfoot is. And it’s true. When they’re young. Patty had arthritis and other issues causing her to simply walk away as we see. She couldn’t flee any faster. Not to mention, her entire family and support system was killed and now she has no choice but to walk away from these humans filming her, as quickly as she physically can.
MK Davis is he source of that. Go watch what he has to say since he actually knew the people involved.
That never happened and has been debunked by numerous credible sources.
The pg film is a real bf, but the massacre story has no credibility.
@ErikAndrew-q2p yea. Its bullshit. No substance, zero evidence of that. In fact the evidence proves it didn't happen. Just a made up story by someone trying to gain some cash or fame
People need to stop worshipping pseudoscientific RUclips Bigfoot celebrities like MK Davis.
A good synthesis. I would show this to a sceptic.
I appreciate that. 🙂
I'll admit it: I cynically clicked on this video to talk trash in the comments about how this obviously was a guy in a suit...now you've got me really thinking about this. Great video. I'm listening now haha
Steve Harvey: "Name something you know exists even if you can't see it."
Family Feud Contestant:
"Bigfoot."
In an interview with Mr.Gimlin, he said that Roger Patterson took a movie camera on the trip, because “someone had seen bigfoots” out near where he and Gimlin were going to ride horses.
How lucky.
“You’d think that if Bigfoot exists there would be pictures and videos.”
*Someone takes video of what they claim to be Bigfoot*
“hOw LuCkY”
He had been looking for a long time
Even the trip they found it they were out there for over a month
He got called at home about tracks found. Chasing a lead.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Robert had issues. Making bots and saying a mythical creature exists.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 it is convinced that bf believers usually believe in loch ness monster and aliens as well. So sad this lot.
If there are Bigfoots,why hasn't there been any close encounters with humans or more substantial evidence of their existence over the last few hundred years?
They have to be the most stealthiest creatures on earth
Yeah, 10 foot tall, apparently stinky and heavy with really big feet.....and yet somehow stealthier than a medium sized cat like a Jaguar, cougar, leopard......or even a friggin Ninja. Give em some throwing stars and a sword and they'd be friggin super assassins ffs. 🤷♂😂🤣
You obviously have never studied the subject at all. A discussion with you would be a total waste of time for anyone with even a Bachelor of Science degree.
Who says there "haven't been any close encounters"???!!! There have been THOUSANDS, and that's just here in Australia (the "Yowie"), let alone in the USA and Canada - I've had one close encounter myself !!!!
Exactly. None shot by hunters, none captured, none even SEEN. No recordings, videos by trail cameras, etc. This video is just trolling people. Big foot does not exist, nor has it ever. Like the missing link.
@TomasFunes-rt8rd
Sure you have...
Millions of encounters daily! Everyone had at least a couple of them.
Yet scientifically, there's not the slightest evidence, except blurry 10 seconds video's.
Come on, man! Get real🤣🤣😂
A succinct review of the problems with the hoax hypothesis. Thank you for posting!
Yeah whatever it’s fake.🙄
What does fake mean?
@@justme-ti1rhit means it’s not really Bigfoot . Just the hoaxers pulling a prank . That’s what’fake’ means in the context .
Happy Thanksgiving
I filmed it…it was 100% real
In Bob's brother's defense, my own brothers didn't believe I was blind for the first 25 years. They though I just had a mild astigmatism. I've been legally blind for 44 years - like no driver's license, walking with a white cane, using text to speech, holding peoples' arms, falling down stairs - blind. They didn't believe it.
My question is why after almost 60 years we still haven't captured a physical sasquatch. That would definately make sceptics like me a believer because we would have real tangible evidence not like the evidence presented here.
Fair question. How many people are trying to capture one?
I really don't think it would make any difference. Regardless, "they" would never admit it.
Apparently entire teams of bigfoot hunters have been trying for decades.
@@eclecticcompass If someone found a Bigfoot and captured it you are saying people wouldn’t believe it? If I caught a Tyrannosaurus and you could see it at a zoo you would tell me it isn’t real?
A bunch of amateurs blundering around. The expedition bf team includes a primatologist, and a good tracker. They've gotten some good evidence.
The big question, same as Loch Ness, you need a breeding population, at least 30 or so. Even widely dispersed and solitary, signs of food scraps, kills, and scat should be visible. What is bigfoot supposed to eat anyway?
Been reported to eat a very wide range of food- deer, small animals, fish, vegetation, berries, and will raid human food sources.
Bf has been reported eating deer, small animals, vegetation, berries, fish, and will steal human food sources.
What food scraps? How would you distinguish Bigfoot food scraps from other scraps?
What if they shit in a ditch and bury it?
There is plenty for them to eat, especially if there is only a few thousands of them. From berries to leaf matter to deer. Bigfoot could eat anything it wants, really.
Deer.
I have a theory, not a popular one. If this was a real creature (still not entirely convinced but you never know) then maybe they went extinct not long after this film. That would explain why there were no other photos or films as convincing due to a very small population or why we don't see any real good evidence today.
Wouldn’t there need to be a population of these animals in order for them thrive and survive? I’m just asking the question.
its just like the unicorn !! ... there's only ONE .... and its been hiding in the clouds
Of course there is a population of them. They have been seen in every state I presume. Here in Texas, deep east Texas is a hotbed of activity and sightings. Just last month or so a woman saw a huge sasquatch crossing a railroad track in Liberty County. In broad daylight.
@@j.d.leslie8458 ... and of course .. NOBODY has taken a picture of it ?? ... grow up and stop believing in the Easter Bunny
I saw a documentary once about a guy named Henderson, he named his Bigfoot Harry....
@@markhellman-pn3hn I’d bet a good little sheep like you is vaxxed and boosted.
I have a rather interesting experience regarding theatrical quality animal costumes. As teen school boys we used to have several of us that would sneak out at night (say 3 am) and just kind of roam around our neighborhood, either toilet papering peoples yards or maybe breaking in the local connivence store or throwing oranges at passing cars on the local main road,,,genrally just causing mayhem. So we are out one night and we see a Lincoln Continental parked in a carport that we had never seen before and it had the trunk open. So one of us went up and checked it out and reported back it had a very large suitcase in it and the house seemed dead quiet. So we grabbed the suitcase, which was heavy as hell, and hauled ass into the nearest woods. When we opened it to our surprise we found a VERY expensive/realistic Gorilla costume. So the biggest amongst us (His name was Louis and he was already over 6 feet) was volunteered to put it on and scare cars as they drove by. Every time I see the PG film it immediately reminds me of how our tallest friend looked in the Gorilla costume....to me the PG film screams Man in a costume!
On those two side by side footages. You can clearly see Patty's rump and back has waymar girth, then the costume one.. not even comparable. 💯% real
Have you seen RUclipsr Sci Man Dan? He has poorly tried to debunk the Patti footage and I think your own coverage of it.
He's one of the lamest skeptics.
.... oh yeah ... the flat earth guy ?? ... we all know gravity is fake - space is fake - and the invisible dome is real !!
Seriously you guys are hysterical! 😂😂😂 I never cease to be amazed at the gullibility of people who appear to be normal functioning humans! Priceless! 😂😂😂
P.T. Barnum once said ... "there's a sucker born every minute" .... (how true)
Yeah, the skeptics that think Patterson drove 2 states away to put his buddy in a female bf suit.
@@robertcoggeshall3071female Bigfoot suit 😂😂😂😂 it's a cheap carny outfit bought at the Costume shop in Vegas you dumbass.
The video presented evidence to debunk the theory that the creature was merely a man in a suit, and in my opinion did so quite well. Do you have some evidence, other than what was already presented and debunked in this video, that it WAS a man in a suit? Surely you must have something to present other than a statement, otherwise why make the statement?
@@mikesiver1950 i saw Santa Clause at the mall - does THAT make him real ?? ... don't be stupid you're entire life
Brother.....THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO! I live not far from Deep Fork River in Oklahoma! I KNOW WHAT I SAW at 3am standing off the highway near motion triggered lights by a trailer park! The top of it's head come to the bottom of the eve of the double wide it was standing by. As I drove north on 75 those lights triggered and I was afraid the rut had deer moving so I took my foot off
the gas. I might not have seen the silhouette was SO BLACK! Blacker than the night! It was standing off the road probably forty to fifty yards, down an embankment towards the homes, but like I said, IT WAS SOL BLACK and brawn. It was facing me broadside as I drove by! The arms were wayyy long! I actually let out a "Holy SH*T!", because I couldn't believe what I was seeing and caught myself looking in the rearview mirror for another glimpse, but hit the gas and went on! NOT KIDDING! It shook me up so bad I flagged down the first policeman I came to in the next town and told him there was something HUGE walking around down by Deep Fork and those trailer houses!
Anyway, I relayed my story on my show that morning, still in shock and got a call from THE VERY GUY WHO OWNED the lawn ornament store across the highway!
He said he too had had an encounter with that VERY creature one night when it tripped his alarm and he had to go up and reset it with a county deputy!
He said they both watched it cross four lanes of highway 75 in probably less than a dozen steps and the deputy actually went for his larger weapons in his cruiser fearing if it came back his Glock wouldn't have been enough to stop it!
Furthermore an OLD OLD TRAPPER contacted me and said they used to go coon hunting down there back in the seventies before something ran 'em out!
He said one night something screamed at us so HORRIFICALLY LOUD, my dogs ran to the truck and my brother and I found ourselves walking backwards all the way out of there!
Something warned us that night and told us not to come back and we didn't! I SAW NOTHING, he claimed. But couldn't place that bone chilling ass scream with anything I'd ever heard in my life from any creature! "I can't even mimic the sound.", Lee said.
What I say is true and I'm so thankful for this video! THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT WE DON'T KNOW FOLKS and I think they use the rivers like a highway!
I'm not crazy either! hahahaha
And I’m 99.9% sure that that is a guy in a suit.
Expert testimony, well, that would be me .
I have every bit the expertise that Bill Muns ever did, and the footage looks like a guy in a baggie suit.
There were definitely rumors in the industry that John Chambers may have had something to do with this, but it was never confirmed.
Your confidence is noted, but let’s take a closer look at your claims:
1. Even if I were to believe you’re an expert in special effects (and I have my doubts), the Patterson-Gimlin film has been analyzed and supported by experts in fields far beyond Hollywood costume design. Anatomists, primatologists, and biomechanical specialists have studied the film and found details that align with natural primate locomotion, not a human in a suit. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology, has emphasized features like the midtarsal break in associated footprints, which is consistent with non-human primates but absent in humans.
2. Bill Munns, a *verified* renowned special effects artist, has concluded that creating such a suit was impossible with 1967 technology. The muscle movement, limb proportions, and anatomical accuracy in the film are well beyond what even Hollywood could produce at the time. If your expertise rivals his, why haven’t you presented a detailed analysis to counter his findings?
3. Your mention of John Chambers is a recycled myth. Chambers himself denied any involvement and stated that the suit seen in the film couldn’t have been created with the materials or methods available in his era. Rumors, however persistent, are not evidence.
4. If it’s 'just a guy in a baggie suit,' where is the suit? Decades later, no one has been able to produce it, including Bob Heironimus, who has inconsistently claimed to have worn it. Given the supposed simplicity of this hoax, presenting the suit should have been the easiest way to end this debate. The absence of such evidence only strengthens the film’s credibility.
5. You seem confident in your special effects background (which I’ll assume for the sake of argument), but are you also an expert in anatomy, primate biology, or biomechanics? Because those experts have consistently supported the film’s authenticity, pointing to features that go far beyond costume design. The unique gait, the proportional arm and leg lengths, and the visible muscle movement are all consistent with a real biological organism and inconsistent with a human in a suit.
In short, even if you’re an expert in effects (again, I’m skeptical), this isn’t just a debate about costumes. It’s about anatomy, biomechanics, and primate locomotion-fields where the evidence overwhelmingly supports the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film. If you’re 99.9% sure it’s a hoax, then I’d suggest presenting a detailed, multidisciplinary rebuttal that accounts for all of this evidence. Otherwise, your claim remains just that-an opinion.
For anyone doubting my expertise on the matter, a simple Google search of my name and a glance at my IMDb credits should suffice to establish my qualifications. My career spans decades in both practical and digital effects, and I’ve worked with some of the true legends of the field, including Rick Baker and Rob Bottin-names synonymous with groundbreaking advancements in creature design and special effects. While I may not claim the status of an all-time great, my experience places me in a strong position to assess claims related to biomechanics, anatomy, and creature design.
No offense intended to Bill Munns, but referring to him as a “renowned” special effects artist is an overstatement. While he’s done some respectable work, he was never regarded as a leading figure in the field-certainly not in the same league as Baker, Bottin, or Stan Winston. These are the titans who set the gold standard, and I’ve had the privilege of learning from and collaborating with them over the course of my career.
Am I an expert in biomechanics? Yes, without question. My transition from practical effects to computer-generated imagery (CGI) required me to master forward and inverse kinematics-essential tools for understanding and replicating realistic motion. As a creature designer, my job demands a deep understanding of anatomy and proportionality to ensure that everything from limb movement to muscle dynamics functions believably.
As a sculptor, I’ve honed my anatomical knowledge over years of crafting characters both practically and digitally. As a rigger, I design and implement joint placements, muscle systems, and skin simulations to ensure realistic deformation and motion. Supervising projects where muscle systems must behave naturally under a character’s skin has further deepened my expertise in this area.
So when I say that the so-called evidence for Bigfoot’s existence often falls apart under scrutiny-particularly when examining alleged footage or anatomical claims-it’s not just opinion; it’s grounded in decades of professional experience. Many of the features attributed to Bigfoot are inconsistent with the principles of biomechanics and anatomy as we know them. For anyone familiar with creature design, these inconsistencies stand out immediately.
In short, my qualifications to critique these claims are well-documented, and my conclusions are based on a career spent bringing believable creatures to life-both practically and digitally. I remain unconvinced by the evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, not out of bias, but because the anatomy and biomechanics simply don’t add up.
@@punchatzyou likely have no credentials if you think patty is a baggy suit. She's all solid muscle.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 lol , you can try googling my name before making such statements….
That suit looks like it was made by kids for Halloween.
Lol, it can't be recreated, even today.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 That's because the carpet it was made from is no longer being manufactured.
@@iamtoothewalrus yeah right, lol. Shag carpet? Lol 😆
I first saw this in 67 when I was 4 years old it’s right there with the Apollo moon landing on the impact it had on me I remember my father who was watching the news screening for me to come and look at this with my mother saying no he will be to scared dad won and I remember thinking Evan at that young age no way is this fake!!! And then a cold chill when I realized monster’s are real!! Been fascinated with Bigfoot ever since
For all you skeptics out there, ill say this, just look at the footage in the video, where the Sasquatch subject turns and looks back. Look at the Sasquatch back, see those two lines going down Pattys back? Thats the Psoas muscle, something you most definitely wouldnt be able to see if it were some guy in a suit. If you look at the inhanced footage, you can see a lot of different little details that would make it nearly impossible to be a suit. The way the hair is considerably shorter and lighter around the mid section, just like a chimp or silver back gorilla has. The tuft of hair going down its back, almost like a mane. Most Hollywood studios back in 1967 didnt have suit technically that advance, say nothing about some side of the road costume maker, or a couple of cowboys.
For you believers out there recognize that you want to believe this and that there's nothing that you could see at this point that would disprove it for you.
Those neck muscles aren't human
Looks like a zipper to me. The buttocks also is clearly part of the suit. You can see (from the AI enhancement and stabilization, mind you all of the above could simply be artifacts) where the pants of the suit go up into and under the buttock shell part of the costume. But go on.
Hardcore believers in the Patterson-Gimlin film are the ones who have almost created a cult-like mindset or group think,. are the most close-minded people out there. They have created an echo chamber where they simply parrot the same tired and baseless old rhetoric, buzz words and talking points over and over and over......
She's built like Dave batista the wwe wrestler in his prime. And she's female! No one would mix breasts and muscularity like that.
Camera man: Bob, your watch is on camera ( Bob in bigfoot suit: oh shoot)
No watch. Real bf.
Those who say “it’s a man in a suit” honestly make me both angry and sick because the footage was captured in 1967 if I’m not mistaken and it was taken by two guys who so obviously didn’t have a big Hollywood budget as we did not see anything as real to what we see in the beautiful footage of the Patterson Gimlin until ten years later in a little movie called Star Wars and the character Chewbacca.
The one point that makes the footage stick out as being so obviously real is the fact she has breasts and why in 1967 would two guys trying to fool the world go to the trouble of attaching female breasts. Its mind boggling to think anyone who actually sits down and see this amazing piece of film only to automatically say it’s fake..it’s utterly disrespectful and degrading to themselves to jump immediately to that conclusion
The Patterson Gimlin footage is clear as day, not a man in a suit.
💯
Not clear at all. Out of focus, grainy, jumping all over the place. It's a hoax.
It had tit's! They zoom in and u can see it's a she .saw yrs ago.
@dominicpardo4783 i totally respect your opinion. I guess this mystery will go down as the most debated hoax or non hoax in history
@frankdagostino8588 It isn't debated by anyone in the scientific community. They don't even consider it something to take seriously.
I am so tired of people saying the film is a fake. They haven't got a leg to step on.
It's fake.
Deal with it 😊😊
Nor do you
It's real. Nobody makes a female bf suit.
and Unicorns are also real - and Santa Clause is real - and the Tooth Fairy is real - and Leprechauns are real - and Wizards are real - and flying green witches on broomsticks are real - and monsters that live under beds are real ..... and SASQUACHES are real too !!
Lol 😂 @@markhellman-pn3hn
I think a crucial question would be were the claims made BEFORE image stabilization happened? Because the original footage was pretty rough and the likely hood of having your claim questioned would be very low due to the poor quality of the original footage. But the stabilization greatly improved the quality of the footage.
I was at a Bigfoot Convention a few years back. Bob Gimlin was there. He is getting up there in age. Everyone was shaking his hand and getting pictures with him. He was a rather humble man. He didn't look like someone that would be any part of a hoax. Supposedly Heironimus lived near Gimlin for years. The rumors were that Heironimus wanted in on the fame and money. Bob Gimlin's life was not a life of fame and fortune because of this film.
Also, they estimate after a scientific analysis, that the creature figure stood about 7 ft 6 inches, if that’s anywhere close to accurate, how many 7 and a half ft tall people were available to pull off the stunt? It’s not like they grow on trees
For over 300 million people in the United States of America Only 150 people are seven foot or taller in 2024 I've met one guy seven foot tall named Ricky Tunstall Youngstown Ohio When I was playing basketball In the gym at College of Southern Idaho
Estimate give or take 5-10 inches lol. Plenty of people being 6' 3" with a 9" costume head would make that easy. But again, an estimate based on what? A guess? There's no accurate frame of reference.
Photo grammetry showed 7 ft 3. Taken from 3 films of the site.
@@dindjarin7185Murphy admitted he was wrong.
Find Chris Murphy and Cliff Crook did a 1999 analysis of the film. They claimed that a buckle could be seen in the film that showed Patty was a man.
So they take a suit, that even by modern standards and technology, is astoundingly realistic, drag it out to the remote woods with a bunch of 1960s camera equipment, and the best shot they could come up with is to have their actor just casually stroll across a clearing? Why wouldn't they do something more believable or animalistic?
Would you like to buy some “magic beans!?” 😅
Probably because they were very limited in what they could do in the suit. I'm sure it was hard enough for whoever was in the suit, to just walk a straight line.
@@RandomlyRandom2025there was no female bf suit.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Robert, you can easily debunk bigfoot. You're the least qualified person on the planet to be investigating such nonsense.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 it was a female bf costume.
The one thing keeping me from fully believing in Sasquatch is the fact that we’ve never once found remains of one. Do they live forever or something?
Great point. I have a theory, not a popular one. If this was a real creature (still not entirely convinced but you never know) then maybe they went extinct not long after this film. That would explain why there were no other photos or films as convincing due to a very small population or why we don't see any real good evidence today. Maybe they will find some remains one day.
It’s the Loch Ness Monster in a suit made by aliens working in concert with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
Best theory I’ve heard yet!
I once seen the Hamms Beer bear by the river when I was fishing. Even though I didn’t have a camera, when I looked with my own eyes it was dark and grainy. Very strange phenomenon. Everything surrounding the Hamms Bear was crystal clear. I don’t have proof, but I do expect most to believe me.
Regardless of how much this footage is enhanced, it's just too poor quality to determine any real details that prove if it's real or fake. For me.
However, that look back... the way whatever it is looks back and keeps moving, then continues on its way would be a very difficult thing to accomplish in any kind of suit without it looking unnatural.
It's an interesting piece of footage
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I completely understand where you're coming from about the quality of the footage-it can be tough to draw definitive conclusions. The look back is definitely one of the most intriguing aspects, and I agree, pulling that off in a suit without looking unnatural would be incredibly challenging. I'm glad you find the footage interesting-it’s always great to hear different perspectives. 🙂
i agree. I dont think i believe in bigfoot as a flesh and blood creature. But there are some pieces of evidence that even a bigot would dismiss. This is probably one of those pieces of evidence
It's been perfectly clear enough, but not to prove it conclusive. The muscular female suit can't exist, but bf might.
She looks pregnant too
Your not noticing the mechanics of her walk. She is doing something you or I or anyone else for that matter cant do. Zoom in and try and freeze it, at the right time, the sole of her trailing foot as soon as it appears. Notice how close to the ground her toes still are and at the same time look at how her knee is bent. Now you bend your knee the same degree. Bet you hundred dollars your toes are several inches from the ground.
I've tried it myself and was shocked how far my foot was from the ground versus patties foot just an inch or so from the ground.
Not a zip up suit but pieces of a custom costume, but Gimlin won't say after decades
If that's a custom ,the maker has been putting Hollywood to shame for decades. Nobody has been able to repeat the costume or video to prove it fake
Just a female suit wouldn't be done, but to add muscles is utter bs.
Obviously a guy in a monkey suit, give me a break.
If you actually take time to look at all the evidence on this, it's obviously real.
@TheHaratashi Hey buddy, I have some prime Florida real estate you might be interested in?
@@TheHaratashi loves the way Bob Heironimus looks at the camera. 😂
Exactly. Bob not having the suit or not knowing what material the suit was made out of is a ridiculous reason to say the man is lying.
It’s a man in a suit
It's perfectly reasonable to question heironimus. He's obviously lying about a suit.
Alaskan here, they are very real, just go hiking north of Fairbanks and you're guaranteed an encounter. Just make sure you're armed, the polar bears and grizzlies have been breeding this new type of bear that we've been seeing around that's really really big, and they are not very friendly as far as bears go. Also I found the wolverines to be a bit more aggressive up there too. Also, it's not uncommon to run into wolf packs of over 200 wolves. Just some things to be mindful of when you head up there. Make sure you take plenty of kit and maybe bring a local guide. Have fun and stay safe 🙂 Nature is awesome 🙂
This documentary is fantastic, thank you for this video 🙂
Most people misunderstand that there is a WIDE gap between skepticism and denialism
So why in the days of universal access to video cameras, smart phones and also multiple cameras placed in the wild to capture footage of wild animals has no one come up with any footage of a big foot. Or why does no one have a body of a big foot. Why has no one ever shot a big foot.
there probably is a lot of footage, and recently there have been captures on film, problem is the ridicule that comes with it, as well as in the moment, even with a bitching phone cam, it hard to get a look at something like that without alerting it and the last thing you want is to piss off an unknown animal.
Try this. Take your kid to the park. Put your phone in your pocket. Tell your kid to hide behind a tree at say 30 yards away. Tell your kid to start running after a random period of waiting. The kid can vary the direction to make it more realistic.
Take out your phone and try to take a photo or video as soon as you notice your kid.
Without fail your photo/video will come out bad. You will take several seconds to start recording. Your images will be blurry, because due to the small size you will either start zooming in, increasing the effect of shaking or you will digitally zoom in. Either while recording or in post.
Please try this experiment. Use different cameras. Go to the woods (much darker).
Now add the fact that your very first thought when seeing a Bigfoot is not going to be "I must record!", but rather "WTH???"
There you have your answer. Do it. Try it out. Convince yourself.
Alternatively, research into what equipment it takes to take a good photo of a bird. It is very hard to do.
Ps. I am a research scientist into a field that involves a lot of optical sensing and have been for 20 years now.
@ Bigfooters are like flat earthers, they're gonna believe this no matter what.
There are plenty of bigfoot videos. They bury their dead. PAtterson had a gun. He later stated he should have shot it to avoid all the controversy.
That line where the legs connect to the butt makes it look like a costume because it appears like the pants go up under the torso section and the butt of the creature moves very little as it walks.
The muscles and toes are visible. That line is hair.
Patterson was a narcissistic individual....
8:44 ?
@@Warpig9 looks like butt muscle to me.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 No the tear on the upper thigh.
It's a hoax, and the fact you expect the guy who wore it 60 years ago to still have it only proves how hard you are reaching.
My question is "WHY?" also.
Why have all subsequent films/videos/etc been so grainy/shaky/far away? Most of them are so bad they're practically worthless. A blurry blob moving around on that mountain peak over there is no proof of anything. Technology has come so far since 1967. Why can't anyone get a video that's at least this good? That's suspicious right there...
That's a great question, and it's something many skeptics and researchers alike have pondered. There are a few reasons why the Patterson-Gimlin film stands out even today:
1. Environmental Conditions: The Pacific Northwest, where many sightings are reported, is often heavily wooded or mountainous, making it difficult to capture clear footage. Dense forests, poor lighting, and long distances between people and potential subjects result in blurry or shaky recordings.
2. Camera Technology of the Time: Back in 1967, Roger Patterson used a high-quality 16mm camera, which captures far more detail than the modern smartphones or basic camcorders often used in recent sightings. Many recent videos are filmed on phones with digital zoom, which degrades image quality.
3. Unpredictability of Sightings: Bigfoot sightings are typically brief and unexpected, giving people little time to prepare for a steady shot. The Patterson-Gimlin encounter was unique because they had the camera ready and were relatively close to the subject.
4. Skepticism and Hoaxes: As you mentioned, many recent videos don’t compare to the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is why they’re often dismissed as hoaxes or misidentifications. Ironically, this skepticism has created a higher bar for acceptable evidence, making it even harder for any footage to stand out.
The Patterson-Gimlin film remains unmatched because of a combination of proximity, equipment, and circumstances that are hard to replicate. Whether that’s 'suspicious' or just a unique moment in history is still up for debate!
Patterson was on horseback, covering way more area. People on foot are at a disadvantage, and bf might be sufficiently used to keeping out of sight from humans.
Probably the only reason we have Patty on film is because of the HORSES.
Robert and Cabin are probably sick of me posting the same thing over and over, but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel every time I comment. So here it goes…
Patty heard and smelled the horses, but not the men. The smell of the 3 horses would over powered the human scent. She may have known what horses were. She certainly would not be afraid of them. She may of seen and smelled wild horses before. If so, they would not have been wearing horseshoes.
So in her curiosity she waited for the horses to come into view rounding the big fallen tree. Seeing humans on them, she started to leave the scene, walking away from them. The farther away she got, the faster she walked.
When Bob Gimlin rode his horse across the creek, Patty heard the horseshoes on the creek rocks and turned to look back - thus creating the most famous picture ever of a Sasquatch. If everyone looking for Squatch used horses to find them, we might have another film.
As for "Why?", I think it's the Firesticks idea.
Like the native Indians of the forest who saw the first Europeans, Squatch have surely seen humans use firesticks to kill animals. Like the Indians, this image of humans holding deadly weapons must somehow get passed down from one Squatch to another. Since they cannot know what a camera does, they might equate the idea of humans holding something to the idea of it being a weapon. So when humans hold a camera or phone in their tiny human hands the Squatch retreat from view.
This fear of weapons/cameras could point to them being some type of relic human. Because animals do not seem to share this trait of being so elusive that we cannot get good photos of them. They seem to think more like humans than like apes.
The question then becomes HOW does this knowledge get passed along from one Squatch to another? If they do not have a writing system, then perhaps they have a language system like humans, to spread these warnings with groups of their own kind. If so, that could mean they are closer to humans than apes. Which could explain why they are intelligent enough to elude our cameras.
@@spiritualarchitect4276 the Sierra sounds seem to indicate a definite language.
This film was shaky to till somebody enhanced it.
The answer to your question is "pixelation". The farther you zoom in the more pixelated it is with digital cameras.
Pixels actually do not capture as much information is film does. While there are high end cameras today with good resolution and lenses most people do not have those cameras. They normally carry around el cheapos that have too much pixelation.
Great info to consider, especially the side-by-side comparison. However, it should be noted that in the frame of the PG film at 8:08, the image of Patty has been digitally altered or manipulated. Notice how the background and other elements along the edge are a bit out of focus, but most of the fur is super sharp and crystal clear. I've never seen any version of the film that has that much clarity. It almost looks like it was artificially sharpened (which can produce unintended artifacts) or even that fur texture has been added to the image. I'd like some explanation of the image used.
If I have to see this advertised again I'll be physically sick.
Man oh man , i've seen several ufo/uap over my tenure on the earth , visited a haunted church/cemetary where the ground shook beneath our feet and graves were illuminated . But to me this is a dude in a costume ... i want it to be the real deal but c'mon ?
WHERE IS THE SUIT!!!???
wheres the Bigfoot after so many years ?,none on trail cams ,killed by cars or hunters ,found dead in the woods ,Bigfoot fanatics come up with all sorts of excuses as to why not
It looks more like a suit now than it ever did.
Expecting Bob to give you a receipt for a suit is hilarious. He said they gave him a suit to wear and helped him into it. He never said he bought it himself.
He's lying. There was never any suit.
@robertcoggeshall3071 - Wrong. There is more than one suit.
You just saw him wearing a suit and you say "there is no suit"? You guys are so invested in something that has zero credible evidence and you ignore any evidence to dismiss the nonsense.
Don't you find it interesting that the reddish suit is filmed with a newer camera and at 10xs closer range minimum and it shows an obvious suit? If the original film were done this close, you would see an obvious suit as well. It was planned that way. It was the last day he was getting paid to search for Bigfoot. Everything about this film was fake. Especially the footprints. Those are literally wooden cut out shoes. No animal leaves footprints that crisp and clean.
@@redfaux74 heironimus can't keep his own story straight, lol. Mark of an obvious and discredited liar. Patterson picked the crispest footprints to cast- they showed great variation, and people examining them couldn't find a trace of a hoax. A female suit would never be made, and it doesn't matter what camera you use, a suit will be instantly see. Patty is definitely real
That Mike Davis guy will probably come out with the cleaned version of the clip and it's will make all sceptic rethink everything they ever said
Does anyone else wonder why, in all these years, we haven’t found a body?
Yep, and the answer is obvious.
Because they don't exist? Now that every 9 year old is walking around with a high def camera in their pocket, we still don't have any credible photos or footage? People have captured some extremely rare stuff on their smart phones, but still not one clear photo or video of Bigfoot.
Good stuff, very cool.
Thanks 🙏
Nice presentation. Thinker Thunker on yt has proven through Proportional DNA that Patty is real.
Is this discussion even serious?
To some it's very serious, to others it's a joke. Regardless I am still fascinated with this film. Even if it's most likely a hoax.
I'm a skeptic mainly because I find the lack of physical evidence after centuries of European presence on this continent to be improbable if such a creature exists. That said, I have never thought the Patterson film looks fake. If Bigfoot was or is real, then that's what it looks. The footage is fairly convincing to me, but footage alone is just not enough and is not a certainty. High resolution fames and even AI enhanced frames have only helped it for the most part. The fur doesn't look fake at all and looks way better than any fake suit or special effect I've seen from that time.
I'm 35 seconds in to the video, but long have known the answer. The supposed 'suit' never saw the light of day, because it belonged to a real living creature. Neither Bob Heironimus, or anyone else came forward with the alleged suit. This is reminiscent of the TV ad from the 80's "Where's the beef". On top of that Heironimus never could provide evidence for the 1000 dollars he was promised for playing bigfoot. Nevertheless, I'll watch the entire video, as it looks quite well done.
Its a suit, and a bad one at that. I've noticed in the whole video its all blurry. Then at the right moment all steady for the great turn and reveal, so staged. Thats a man walk, not an animal.
It's a real female bf.
It's a suit you can see it stretch, and, bunch as he walks and in one enhanced version you can see his wallet in his front pocket.
Lol 😆, you can see muscles, a tendon on the calf and toes flexing. You wouldn't see any zipper or crease from that distance.
I find it funny how people just say its fake like THEY are the professional who know all about animals and suits 😂
@@robertcoggeshall3071Wrong
I stopped believing in bigfoot when trail cameras became widely available.
I have two more reasons to no longer believe:
1) Everyone now carries a HD camera in their pocket and has done so for several years now. But what do we have to show for it? More blurry pictures. Absolutely nothing more convincing than any of the decades old pics out there.
2) Time. It's been a long time since the PG film. Since that time thousands of people have searched the forest hoping to be the one who finds proof of this elusive creature. Again, all these people have come up with is more blurry pictures of some "unidentified" animal.
If this video is correct, it could have just died out by now. Plenty of species have gone extinct, especially after humans have expanded further and industrialised.
They see in the infrared light spectrum..
@@mikeschlup5279 they can also turn invisible...
@@mandaloretheproud6622 Yeah they just died out and we never found their bones literally anywhere ever.
I hope this video is satirical....you understand both men's entire family and friends all happily admit they set this all up. Even the MAN WHO MADE AND SOLD THE SUIT told everyone it's his suit....
I cannot understand why you can't see it and will not accept it, unless of course you're making the video for profit or making it as a half assed gag joke
John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the "it was a hoax" narrative, but let’s unpack your points with some evidence and reasoning.
First, the claim that “the man who made and sold the suit” came forward is highly problematic. Bob Heironimus and Philip Morris are often cited in these stories, but their accounts fall apart under scrutiny. For one, Morris has never provided the alleged suit, which would be a significant artifact if it truly existed. After all, producing the suit would be the ultimate smoking gun to conclusively debunk the Patterson-Gimlin film. Yet, here we are, 57 years later, with no suit and no verifiable evidence of its existence. Strange, isn’t it?
Second, let’s address the suit itself. Multiple costume and special effects experts, including Bill Munns, have analyzed the film and concluded that creating such a realistic and anatomically accurate suit in 1967 would have been virtually impossible. The muscle movement, limb proportions, and gait displayed in the film don’t match what you’d expect from a person in a costume-especially one allegedly created by someone without access to the advanced materials or technology available even decades later. It’s telling that no one has been able to convincingly replicate the footage, despite modern CGI and prosthetic technology.
Third, the "entire family and friends" claim about admitting to a hoax is a common oversimplification. Yes, stories circulate about people claiming to have been involved in the hoax, but these accounts often lack corroboration or fall apart when details are examined. For instance, the various “confessions” often contradict each other, raising serious doubts about their validity.
Finally, dismissing my video as either satire or a “half-assed gag joke” feels more like an attempt to avoid engaging with the actual evidence presented. I encourage you to look into the detailed analyses of the Patterson-Gimlin film, from experts in biomechanics to anthropologists who specialize in primates. These analyses raise compelling questions about whether this could realistically be a hoax, especially given the limitations of the time.
In short, the hoax explanation has far more holes than the film itself. Instead of relying on hearsay and unverified claims, I invite you to dive into the evidence and ask yourself why this footage continues to baffle experts over half a century later. If it were as simple as “a guy admitted to making a suit,” this debate wouldn’t still be happening.
Bob was just jealous that he didn't see the sasquatch. He just wants the fame. Morris was just the same and just as sad. Greg Long should have been sued for defamation. Overall this was a real sasquatch that was filmed. I've seen several sasquatch and this is how they walk.
Where were your encounters?
@martyyoung3611 South Central Montana and central Wyoming.
@@Scott-se9yl, I've had two, both in Eastern Kentucky......1995 and 2021.
@martyyoung3611 how close were you to them?
@@Scott-se9yl, I never actually saw the one in '95, it followed me out of the woods at around 0300. Too dark to see very much. It was about 40 feet away judging by the foot falls. The one in 2021 was at least 250 yards away in an open, mown field. I was riding my mountain bike, when I topped a small hill and it was standing out in the field. I watched it for over a minute and it never moved.
I started riding again, keeping it in sight the whole time. There was an old outbuilding on the property and I lost eye contact with it.
When the spot where it was standing came back into view it was gone, it just vanished.
Why can't anyone get a clear picture of a bigfoot or an e.t.spaceship.why isn't there a skeleton or even a bone fragment?
I'm still skeptical, but neither will I outright dismiss this one either. It seems obvious to dismiss this as a man in a suit, but so far the evidence for this is unreliable at best. Three different accounts of where the suit came from means that at least two people are lying. The recreation, whilst looks decent, just doesn't sell the look and part of that I think was due to where and when the image was taken.
For the recreation of the suit, I would say going to a location that looks roughly similar, around same time of day, with both a modern and period accurate cameras, and film it then and only then to get close to the same effect and look as that shine off "Patty", plus the distance from the camera, can help decide if its real or fake.
As for the beast in general, I have thought about it and have a theory to explain a few sightings. It is a real animal, but one we know of already and that you wouldn't expect to encounter in the woods. These are actual chimps and apes. Many people, at least when looking at the total population of the US overall and just how many people their are, probably own one exotic pet.
From Tigers to Chimps, to Snakes and Crocs. At one point or another, particularly wealthy or well off individuals would pick up a unique pet and return home, only to release them into the wild once they became too difficult to handle. But either not wanting to get in trouble and fined (or even jailed), or worried their former pets would be put down, they secretly released them into the wilderness.
This might explain why their is such a small population relative to the size of the US whilst also fluctuating in terms of sightings and encounters. Put simply, as laws were enforced when it came to exotic pets after a series of incidents and rumors, efforts made to limit the purchase and allowing these exotic species here in the US ended up indirectly reducing the number of actual "BF" encounters in terms of dealing with known animals. Most encounters are brief, unexpected, and rarely result in footprints being found, hair samples, or any sort of DNA. This doesn't explain all, but some encounters maybe more real then one realises.
100% Fake.
Thanks for clearing that up
I wonder if big foot is wearing Nike or New Balance sneakers in the video.
Adidas
@pietropes1322
Yes, now I see the 3 stripes.
So I guess you have hair in the soles of your feet. Lol
New Balance is probably more affordable
@DonaldWheelis-xb1lu
Just in my nose and ears and buttcrack
Unlike the creature discussed here, Dolly Parton has little feet. When asked about this, she replied,
_"I've got little feet because nothing grows in the shade."_
It's funny that a lot of people think that there's no way the PG film could be fake but two years later the moon landing film could have easily been faked.
Yeah except that that one party has billions and billions of dollars and unlimited possibilities to make you believe their lie and cover it up if the moon landing was indeed faked while the PG-Film was filmed by average guys where a few thousand buck would have been gained and a news article at best.
I’m not saying the film is real, there is arguments against it and a lot of arguments for it. The footage speaks for the authenticity the fact that it seems impossible to exist without being shot or found otherwise speaks against the authenticity.
Lies? It's obviously a man in a suit. That footage has been screwed with so much the original doesn't even exist anymore. Is this a troll? Gotta admit though, these comments are hilarious.
Hard to argue with all the logic and facts you cited. 🙂
@cabininthewoods517 I know. This charade has gone on long enough. It's an insult to all things zoological...and common sensical.
Ah, yes, the 'common sensical' argument-always airtight. Zoological experts must have overlooked their textbooks when they failed to declare that 'it looks like a suit' constitutes scientific analysis. If only Bigfoot had considered the feelings of zoology before taking that stroll in 1967.
@@smashtoad so you are aware that people had the same attitude towards gorillas till they were discovered, why is bigfoot, a possible ape species so hard to grasp? and yeah, like cabininthewoods517 said, you really didnt give any real argument as to why its fake.
@@cabininthewoods517you may want to check out Deception Detective’s look at Gimlin. People telling the truth don’t talk like that.
Not one bone of big Foot skeleton has ever been found. Yet we have museums filled with dinosaur bones.
Yep...
As a bear hunter I have never ever once in my 30 years of hunting bears came across a dead carcass are bones of a bear in the wilderness
@@RobertJackson-mo4es yet RFK Junior had no trouble finding a dead baby bear as roadkill and had no trouble taking it to New York city and dumping it in central Park.
Dead bears are found on the side of the road all the time , your claim is just nonsense.
I grew up, wanting so bad to believe in Bigfoot, unfortunately the more I dug into the subject, the more I became convinced that there’s no such thing as a Bigfoot.
@@RobertJackson-mo4es But there are bones of prehistoric bears. Big Foot didn't just show up in the present day. He had to have ancestors going back. Human bones have been found dating back several thousand years. But no Big Foot skeletons. They need to procreate, forage for food, eat and poop. Yet, nothing. There's bear scat in the woods. Bear fur. Bear claw marks on trees and logs.
Yup!
Evis is hanging with a whole tribe of bigfoots
I have been fascinated with this film since I was a little kid in the late 1970s. I still don't know if it's real or a brilliant hoax but I can't get enough of it. It's such an interesting short film regardless of whether it's real or fake.
I really like the impeccably clear still with the Bigfoot animation superimposed over it. No, I'm serious. It's much easier to watch than the clumsy original footage. Who did that?
100% a suit and a bad one at that.
You don't think that's a good suit for 1967?
@alrivers2297 lol. Actually now that you mention it
Female bf suit wouldn't have been done. It's utter nonsense by the skeptics.
Bigfoot is not real
Good argument. Hard to argue with all the facts you cited. 🙂
An expert says "Impossible to make a suit that good in 1967". The original Planet of the Apes was filmed between May 21 and August 10, 1967. And those ape suits look more realistic than bigfoot.
No they don't. They had to clothe the apes because they couldn't hide the seams. There's no directional hair growth. It wasn't "an expert." It was leading experts. The guy that made those suits you allege are more realistic stated that if someone made a suit as seen on Patty they were 20 years ahead of the best effects experts in Hollywood-and they were and are the best in the world.
There’s actually an episode of the little rascals titled Bear Shooters from 1930 that features a gorilla suit that looks pretty darn convincing especially for that time so there goes that suit theory blown out the window decades earlier just saying.
Bs. The pota ape suits are baggy as f, and so is the little rascals gorilla. Wouldn't fool a child. Patty is all muscle.
@ call it what you want either way and I am not saying I believe or disbelieve the authenticity of the creature but still don’t see any evidence here that a 6 foot person in a suit can be ruled out.
@@lotsatrains 2 films of over 6ft men walked the patty path and she was easily taller than both. The tallest was 6'5.
Patterson himself said this was fake! Do some research!
He swore it was real on his deathbed. You must be thinking liaronimus was Patterson, lol.
How do you explain Patterson’s deathbed confession about the film? 🤷♂️ he’s the one who said it was fake.
There was no confession.
He swore it was real, and Gimlin even said Patterson promised to go hunt patty down again with tranquilizers this time.
I'd like to see a breakdown on what the individual in the suit would've had to look like. Wouldn't it basically need to be a gigantic female body builder or a true Amazonian, and even then one with disproportionately long arms and a very unusual gait?
Or just a suit lol
Nobody would make a female suit.
@@_MikeJon_ The suit would already need to be almost unrealistically elaborate with the visible muscle/tendon movement, now you're suggesting it also convincingly adds a ton of mass, long arms, and an unusual gait to the person inside? And they were still able to walk fluidly with this incredibly bulky suit?
@@ryanbartunek1072 You're repeating those claims based off of others saying it after they watched an AI enhancement and altered video. Nothing about what you just claimed is fact. It's conjecture.
@@_MikeJon_ ...have you watched the PG film? Everything I said about muscle mass, long arms, unusual gait, and fluid movement is VERY clearly visible in the unedited film. As for the muscle movement, you can still see that in the unedited film, sure it's not VERY clearly visible like everything else lol, but the thigh still appears to jiggle.
Man in a suit
Bigfoot is real as much as the earth is flat😂😂😂😂😂😂
The 6 laugh emojis really add to your credibility. 🙂
45 years later, and almost everyone carries a phone that takes good pictures and videos, and this is still "the best" ???? No one ever stumbled upon a dead one or bigfoot bones ??
Humanoid, tribal and highly intelligent. I can assure you they take care of their dead. These are not apes.
What makes you so certain you’d know about it if they had?
@@j.d.leslie8458 well technically they are, just a species we havent been able to fully document yet much like gorillas before they were discovered.
Never felt strongly either way but that evidence was compelling.
Yeah.. no 😅
To me it's a hoax. Lets assume it was "big foot", then why didn't it attack the camera person or why it kept walking like nothing? The walk is human like to me. It's fake!!!