The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film: What most likely happened
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film: What most likely happened
Our merch: my-store-d4ffb...
Support Bad Things on Patreon: / badthingsbad Things: True Crime is a channel with all things true crime and mystery! Subscribe to stay updated on the most interesting true crime cases out there.
⚠️ Copyright Disclaimers
• Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
• We use images and content in accordance with the RUclips Fair Use copyright guidelines
#badthings #truecrime #mystery
“Believe in yourself. Even when nobody else does.”- Bigfoot
Love it 😅😅
Yeah, I've seen that internet meme too.
@@TheRowlandstone73 I have a T-shirt with that on it. It's hilarious.
The hide an seek king
Such a wise creature
That's all fine and dandy, so they have the man who said he wore the suit (heironimus), also, the hollywood suit maker who said he made the suit (Morris), etc. But here's the catch, when they offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a copy of the suit and renact the patterson film, all parties agreed when offered big money. Yet when they tried, it was laughable. The recreated suit looked stupid, obviously fake, and the remake film was actually comical. Thats when they realized one thing, these people who claimed to have made the suit, claiming to have parcipated in the patterson fraud, were lying. They basically piggy backed on the film's notoriety, trying themselves to profit. In doing so, they were exposed as frauds themselves, and the patterson film has held up to scrutiny to this day. The film's real folks deal with it.
Bob Gimlin has stated that he truly wished this encounter was fake and wouldn’t keep this charade up for this long. Mr. Gimlin has plainly stated that this film didn’t benefit him in the slightest and actually ruined his life. Hardly the words of a man with deception on his mind.
More like a man whose deception blew up in his face so he lived to regret it.
@@spankynater4242 Exactly.
Ruined his life. Sounds like he's being a bit dramatic. It's not like everywhere he went people shouted "There's Bob Gimlin"
I was thinking that too. I mean it looks like a 'stage: "enter stage left, ' do whati I tell you to do, exit stage right." ....no one sees WHERE Gimlan is in the film or Patterson No one 'sees the horses going crazy and they would have been startled by a real creature AND probably runing IN th efrae, or partlt in it. Plus, if you look at that footage, it DOES look like Patterson is shaking the camera up and down to 'mimic' being startled on his horse, yet, the footage while the camera is shaking is as if he is standing on the gorund NOT up in his saddle. he doesn't fall on the ground either as Gimlan said he went for his camera and fell because of the horse. Gimpan's sotry changed a couple of times about this.@@spankynater4242
Also read: “this poorly executed hoax has caused me great embarrassment, and I stuck to my story long enough that walking it back would have been even more embarrassing.”
The problem is that NO one can recreate this "suit." I'm on the fence, but in 60 years everyone that has tried to recreate this has fallen flat.
Exactly
it doesn't need to be exactly recreated. The original took 9 months and the person who wore it was in his 20's at the time. Once he felt it was safe enough to admit it was him, he was an old man.
@@lauras3612 still not a shred of proof.
@@joshlight6892 many shreds. Ray Wallace's grandson has fabric scraps in his grandfather's house. Plus a big "shred" would be the fact that RP was so unscrupulous that he hired an imposter to pose as the real Bob Gimlin without asking the actual BG if that was okay. Facts.
No human has body proportions that match Patty.
I don't blame Bigfoot for not wanting anything to do with us humans 😆
Yup same with the aliens.
Or the cryptids Christ having seen that tRump thing I'm no surprised
Same here....
I think she was just taking a stroll, (looking for food?) and here are those non-hairy little creatures
No such thing exists. There is zero proof. Not even one hair.
@karlyoung5089 agree..... but!
There's something (a lot of times bears), but in Nepal and even native Americans describe something large.
Heronimous is also a bald faced liar. He was PAID by one of the big lumber companies to LIE about "wearing an ape suit for Patterson as he filmed him walking in it, to produce the Patterson/Gimlin film". Experts with computer software have since tested the film where Heronimous was asked to "duplicate the stride" he did while "Patterson filmed him in the ape suit", and NO EXPERT could get any of his limbs ( arms & legs ), joints ( knees, elbows, shoulders, ankles ) to line up anywhere close to the being that was captured on film. Not even his torso could be lined up properly. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for Heronimous to have "walked in the ape suit for Patterson to film".
@@philiphaseldine1135
The major difference in your comparison:
Millions of people worldwide haven't seen the Tooth Fairy, let alone taken photos and videos, recorded audio, made track casts, etc.
@@hanburgundy4317 Millions you say, yet there has never once been a decent photo or vid, No hair samples ever collected with DNA proof, Come on now!
@@philiphaseldine1135Wrong, DNA doesnt lie. You havent spent ANY time educating yourself on this topic. That's obvious.
Also, there is a 71 degree angle in the shin rise with each step. Human beings have a 52 degree shin rise. It is impossible for someone to fake that. Other bigfoot videos show the same angle of 72 degrees. The body proportions are also not human, torso, arms, legs, hips, ratios etc. These things are 100% real. Makes you wonder what other "cryptids" are real and lurking around out there
lol you people who believe this are crazy. When you actual go research Patterson’s story, the more you realize he was known swindler and had some huge holes appear in his story. including his claim he somehow got the film developed and colorized in one day in 1967, and his brother in law (know businessman) who picked it up couldn’t “remember” who developed it.
Although there are a lot of reasons to question Patterson credibility I find it telling that with all the technology available today the film still cannot be definitely debunked in fact most analysis comes out on it being genuine. It's easy to find videos where it is scrutinised in detail which reveals not only muscle movement but even what appears to be a hernia that moves just like a hernia would if the subject was walking.
How do you debunk something of such poor quality? That's the principle issue with the video. It's so low resolution that you can't really see enough detail to say one way or another.
@@NobodyNeedstoknow-bq5px What people look for when attempting to debunk a Sasquatch video is mostly movement patterns, such as the angles the knees bend, the way the arms and hands move, the way the head moves, and various other things. Basically, if the animal moved in the same way a human would, then people would claim it's a hoax. While this film has poor quality, the movement cannot be easily attributed to a human in a suit. Proportions is another important factor. Humans have consistent bodily proportions, such as the leg to torso to height ratio. And this creature does not display typical proportions. Like if this were a person in a suit, they'd have a hard time moving the hands because their hands wouldn't reach the hands in the suit. My point is that there are things we can look at that don't require high resolution. I'm not saying it's a Bigfoot, in fact, it behaves too casually for what you'd expect from an elusive creature near humans. But if this is a hoax, it's very well done.
@@NobodyNeedstoknow-bq5px ----The original isn't nearly that poor. What most of us see are copies of copies of copies, so of course it's going to look bad. Nobody has debunked the original yet.
@@michaelj.beglinjr.2804 when did you see the original exactly ?
@@santacruzman What are you seeing ? Are you in the hoax or the genuine camp ?
One detail worth noting is the circumstances in which they encountered the world champion of hide and seek. Bob said they came around a bend and "there it stood" (or crouched?) IN the creek. When you're near a moving creek, much less standing in one, you hear water - not two cowboys trudging slowly on a mossy forest floor. If it's real these circumstances make sense as it would not easily hear anything approaching from its location. Also it would not be comfortable exposing itself to easy view as this, except in such a remote location as this. Also when you consider its height, width and girth, this thing is built like two defensive ends in one. It is huge!
It's a dry creek bed
@@mikelachina4730 the creature was encountered and filmed walking along the creek bank.
@@jeffkelly636this is clearly a hoax. If Bigfoot was real there would be skeletons of dead Bigfoot creatures found unless you think they bury their dead lol 😅
@@mikelachina4730no, it's a running creek all year. Check Google Earth genius.
They were riding horses. Hardly being quiet.
What ever Patterson-Gimlin did, They've stayed in the news longer than most Celebrities have 🤔
Really it's a genius way to make $$$$$$.
It was one of the greatest hoaxes of all time it's still got people believing it's a real Bigfoot
Patterson died in the 70s, and Gimlin only was supported at bigfoot conferences.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Water under the bridge..... the video is still a thing though.
@@metalmike570because it's the real thing. A fake would be easy to see in the clearest part of the footage.
This past summer (2023) my Wife,daughter and myself saw something standing on the side of the road while traveling S.on 199 from the Oregon border to Crescent City ( near Hiouchi)
Whatever that thing was it was not a Bear and it wasnt a hoaxer at 5:45 a.m
We were more intrigued by it then scared.
It was quite amazing actually!!!
Did you call out the name Pauley Shore and see if it responded?
@@Bigwave2003 I don't get it...
You won't until you have an experience with one!
@@joegauschHow stoned were the three of you at the time, Joey?
@@agi2160 " not necessarily stoned but beautiful "
Bluff Creek isn't someplace you just drive to. It's 50 or 60 miles by foot or horseback to where the film was taken.
You're smoking meth. Patterson and Gimlin both agreed they drove their truck within 2 miles of the tracks. They went back to the truck to get the plaster.
Google Maps shows it's literally right next to a road.
@@-Zer0Dark-, so I guess Google Maps has debunked the whole film then...
@@-Zer0Dark-I'm pretty sure there have been roads built since 1967.
Look up Small Town Monsters they made the Pilgrimage to Bluff Creek,,,
It's a bit risky keeping your friend out of the loop in a hoax. Especially if your friend's armed with a hunting rifle.
@ConfederateLivesMatter2 Your mum's a hoax
@ConfederateLivesMatter2😂😂😂😂😂 OK.
I want to see some examples of the monkey suits that the couple produced. I would like to see someone wearing one of their monkey suits. Something tells me that it would look like "The Banana Splits."
NO not at all. Don't underestimate fine seamtresses back in the day- Great beautiful things were made before computer graphic bull.
@@larrywakeman4371 Yet nothing from the 1967 era looks anywhere remotely like this critter. I'm very open to it being a hoax, in fact Occam's Razor makes it probable, however I'd still like someone to reproduce this using 1967 tech. Heironomous and Morris also have some credibility issues not noted in this video.
@@JedForge The suit used techniques from the 40's. If you can show me any suit shot in blurry Kodachrome film like this one for comparison then feel free to share it.
The Banana Splits and all their mutant children are here in this comment section claiming it's a suit because someone who claims they wore the suit, but has no proof that it exists or ever did, said so.
There's a 1966 episode of The Beverly Hillbillies titled "The Gorilla". It shows a credible gorilla costume for the time. The Pattison footage is from quite a distance away, which helps hide the flaws.
Ok I'm just going to state a few facts. The Patterson film was shot by two broke guys in 1967. Look at the creature in that film. Watch it move and see how it's body looks. NOW, watch a movie called Beneath The Planet of the Apes and look at the ape costumes used in the steam room scene. In that scene you get to see ape costumes sans clothing.They are absolutely laughable. You can easily see the actors moving inside the costumes. This movie was made in 1970, three years after Patterson's film. This movie was the best Hollywood could do at the time and it had a 3 million dollar budget. What budget did Patterson have because his Bigfoot wayyyy out classes a big Hollywood production.
If you watch this video you will learn where the costume was purchased and for not much money. Filming something from a distance covers up a lot of flaws.
@@Bigwave2003 I watched the video. I stand by my statement. That video has been enhanced and scrutinized and there is no way those two could pull off that suit with the money they had. If you watch the Planet Of The Apes movie I stated in my op you would know what I'm talikng about.There was no suit found, no other suit produced by that company that matches it. No examples of what they had period.
this is a good point. however, a counterpoint is that the ape costumes in movies, even at the time, are very close to the cameras, where all the details are very visible. they're under lights directed at them. everything is deliberately staged on a movie set. the cameras are also most likely of a much higher quality than something a random guy is going to be able to rent or borrow or have lended to him. so of course fake monkey suits will look fake on camera.
I don't personally feel like comparing this video and the Sasquatch or suited person to movies from the same time period is a fair comparison because they're not equivalent to me.
@@sethescope You don't need to be a movie buff to see the difference in the Planet of The Apes film and the Patterson film. Clearly the Patterson creature is more realistic as when the filmed was cleaned up and closely scutinized you can see the muscles moving as the creature walks.If Patterson faked the fim why would he spend money on a extrordinary suit, pay and actor not only for his work but his silence, take him to a very hard to get to remote place in the mountains, then shoot a jumpy 1 minute film. He never made and real money from it. The actor in the film would have to be some 7 feet tall as two experts seeing the surrounding and knowing what camera he used said. One expert say 7'6 another saying 7'3. The suit supposedly made by a custume maker was never found, never reproduced. He attempted to make a film duplicating the Patterson film and it looks ridiculously fake.
None of the Planet of Apes original series were the best that Hollywood could do at the time.
Sure looks real to me and always did. It's hard to believe that's a man in an ape suit. The muscles in her legs, breasts, etc., look pretty authentic.
No it’s not
Of course she is real but some people's cherished preconceptions don't allow them to acknowledge this.
This isn’t fake. There is no way you can artificially produce this in 1967. The rippling of the muscles, the moving of the mouth, and even a bulge likely to be a herniated muscle, no suit would do that.
I personally think it’s much more likely for Sasquatch to exist than not exist.
Another very believable story is Jess Boiler’s account from 1997 in Oregon. He is a former lawyer and Marine who later worked as a sheriff’s deputy. He had nothing to gain from his story. I can’t think of a more plausible witness.
@ConfederateLivesMatter2 no, you're the one who isn't paying attention to the facts. The joints bend in IMPOSSIBLE places. A monkey suit doesn't change where your limbs bend.
@ConfederateLivesMatter2 The forest is one of the few safe places where you can go with very few knee grows which is why you don't wanna believe sasquatch is reel cause she's BLACK 🤠🤣
These creatures are probably smarter than we are, for sure smarter than the people that believe it's an ape suit.
I went to my parent's house for Christmas and brought up the subject. My parents are from Laos and told me there's always been many stories about these beings. One in particular is a dog barking and going nuts after some people spotted a bigfoot, the dog followed a scent to a spot with branches and leaves, they cleared the brush only to find sand.
Since your parents are from Laos, let me tell you something: I had a guy, from Iowa, write me (I am on west coast), telling me that he was in the Vietnam war, when he saw something he will never forget. He was assigned to watch over a communication line, wire, strung across a hill and canyon; up the side of another hill, etc. So, there he sat, watching the area where the wire was, when he saw slight motion of something. At first, he thought it must be a Vietnamese person. Soon after, he saw a huge apelike animal, walking on two legs. He watched it until it went away. To this day, he is 100% certain that it was what he thought, and not a known animal. More like a gorilla, with long legs. Interesting, too, that the fossil record shows the largest ape, ever known to exist, lived in China, just north of Vietnam/Laos?Cambodia, Thailand. That huge ape has only a scientific name, Gigantopithecus blacki; thought to be extinct
I grew up here in Humboldt and alot of people of bigfoot encounters. A buddy of mine and his friend walked up an a juvenile in the snow and it bolted into the trees before they could get any footage HOWEVER they video documented the foot prints leading into the trees. They said what they saw of it didnt look that big but the stride was about 7 feet like it was more leaping than running. I got to see the footage he took its trippy. The footprints wern't exactly human shaped but almost.
Dont worry. If they got video it would of been blurry and etc, etc. NO SUCH thing. LOL
@@mikelachey824
ruclips.net/video/sJ2uIQsGD-k/видео.htmlsi=axKrwvmmFETThVYs
@@mikelachey824…ok DIP💩💩
@@mikelachey824People used to say the same things about UFO’s you dum-dum. Lol 😂 😂
@@mikelachey824that's odd, the same thing happens when your momma gets video taped. All two tons of her is always blurry on video
Wendigoes and Sasquatchs are totally different, at least in folklore.
I went to Wendy's yesterday a got a Biggie bag again!
Wendy's indeed! Wendy's are a myth and nothing but fanciful folklore. A diversion for dissatisfied folk to distract themselves from the reality of real life and men prancing about the woods in ape suits! 😄
Completely different!
Yes wendigo are evil spirits that possess cannibals in the wilderness. See Ravenous, great movie
absolutely. I'm also not surprised a video gets something so basic wrong because apparently even in 2023 people can't be bothered to do basic googling lol
I'm offering a $10,000 prize to anyone who can convincingly duplicate the PG film by using 1967 film equipment and a person in a suit.
Problem with that, it would cost more than the money you put up.
$100,000 now were talking.
@@jesse75likely much more in today’s money.
Have Phillip Morris make another suit will cost you more than that. But he can do it! He made the first one
@@user-ze6er6dx9xlol 😆. Not that abomination he showed on national geographic! Even the producer said this looks nothing like the Patterson film!
@@user-ze6er6dx9x Morris tried to take credit for 'the suit' because his own business was dwindling, fact
If there's one thing I've learned as a lifelong sci-fi fan, it's "always look at the feet". Aliens and monsters in sci-fi can have some really creative and excellent costumes (and some pretty bad ones too) but it's the feet that make or break a costume, and it's often why you never see the monster's feet, because it's hard to disguise the human method of walking and all human feet are basically the same. Even H.R. Geiger's monster from "Alien" had very human feet in the form of massively embellished shoes that the actor wore. They don't appear in the film, but there are plenty of behind the scenes pictures and they prove the point: see the feet and the monster loses a lot of credibility. God knows, classic Doctor Who had this problem in spades. So if you're ever called upon to look at something like the Patterson footage, concentrate your attention on the feet, because they're the dead giveaway of whether you're looking at a cryptid or a bloke in a suit.
Right, the toes flexing up before the ball hits the ground is a dead giveaway it’s fake because a costume can move on its own
@@zacariasnelson5753 yes the totally unique feet and their movement prove the authenticity of this!
It's a guy in a suit, I notice we never see zoomed in and "enchanced" frames from the beginning of the video were you can see the legs and their movement. It looks like he has square Lego feet, lol. I haven't seen a video talking about the legs and feet even though it's called Bigfoot. Why would the best evidence for Bigfoot in a day and age were everyone carries around a camera with them be a film from the sixties?
Yep...that mid tarsal flex can't be faked....
@@fallscityfirearms5713it probably can be today, but not nearly 60 years ago, in the middle of nowhere by two amateurs
Many more details have come out under modern scrutiny, her mouth was moving, a bulge on her thigh that protruded with every step (like a muscle rupture) , the mid-tarsel break in the foot is also visible while walking
Absolutely right.
Hmm and since this footage was released nobody has taken footage to rival this footage ever .
@scallen3841 what does that even mean?
@@oilersridersbluejays show us a body , show us bigfoots bones , we have satellites that can view individual people on the street . Yet in all these years no bigfoots have been hit by cars or trucks or shot by hunters , we have cell phones that can take 4k video yet no footage taken can match this 16mm footage taken
@@oilersridersbluejays it means that it's not faked , it's a real living being
We could get the highest quality image or video possible and ppl will still just say its fake
Look up Siberian Bigfoot. Crystal clear. People still bag on it.
Yes, unfortunately, the only piece of physical evidence that will convince the skeptics of the creature's existence is a body, or a fragment of one, on the table
@@LeftTownMedia or literally ANY actual evidence.
@@christheghostwriter no.
The skeptics will dismiss any video footage or photo as fake. No photographic evidence will convince the skeptics that these creatures exist.
@@LeftTownMedia THIS film IS fake. Deal with it.
Absolutely AUTHENTIC! There are no costumes in Hollywood then or Now that look THAT REAL. PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE.
Wearing a monkey suit and walking around in the woods is a good way to get yourself shot
Then why with so many sightings haven,t they shot a real one,because its all bs
Until they find a dead one most people don’t believe it or could care less
You THINK? LOL.
If you think back this has been the most convincing evidence of the unknown animal, and there really has been nothing equal in the age of cell phones video, satellites and remote drones.
Because the Europenan costume makers were that good back in the day when hand work was everything in Europe.
Right at 18:30 it's explained that Bob Heronimous was the guy paid $1000 to wear that ape costume and it had shoulder pads and stuff to alter his body. It goes on to say that that Bob ended up not getting paid!!
Yeah, everyone in the wild now has a cellphone and a lot are armed. Yet no clear "bigfoot" video from a modern device or a body .
@@metalmike570really then how come when Bob Hieronymus and morris, the guy who claimed to make the suit, tried to recreate a suit and recreate the Patterson film it looked hilariously fake and nothing like what you see in the PGF ? I mean if he originally made the suit how come he can't make an exact replica of what you see in the Patterson film ? BECAUSE MORRIS NEVER MADE A SUIT, HIERONYMUS NEVER WORE A SUIT, AND WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN THE PATTERSON FILM IS ACTUALLY A BIOLOGICAL CREATURE.
@@wyattblackwood3927 If there's Bigfoot creatures from then to now, then how come no more films or pictures were shown? If you can find some more here on RUclips post the link(s).
I'm admitting I didn't search it. 👍
The most updated frame by frame breakdown by enhancement sure shows a lot of muscle movement details.
Yes. How could Patterson have managed to get his hands on a "costume" like that, which even the top costume/makeup artists in Hollywood at the time couldn't produce? There was literally no technology or materials available at the time to create a costume that good, that actually showed muscle definition beneath the fur. You can see those muscles both on the back and on the legs, moving and rippling as it walks. It couldn't have been a man wearing stretchy fur fabric right against his skin because no such fabric existed yet then. There's a scene in the second Planet of the Apes movie, made around 1970, that showed the gorillas in a sauna, walking around "naked". In their one-piece fake fur jumpsuits they looked like big hairy Teletubbies. That was the best a rich Hollywood film studio could do with the best artists in the business in 1970, while a broke cowboy pulled off something like the "costume" in that film in 1967? And that's not even getting started on the proportions of the film's subject, the short legs, long torso, and arms that are longer than any human's, with elbows that bend normally and hands that move. How was that done? Prosthetics? They were used back then, but not ones that could move in a natural way.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci What you are saying are just the same myths that the other bigfoot fans repeat. Roger Patterson wasn't the country bumpkin you want to believe he was, he had powerful Hollywood connections and even had Walter Hurst represent him, the same one who represented Sonny and Cher. This would be like having the same rep as Billie Ellish today. His brother Al DeAtley was one of the wealthiest men in Yakima and funded the whole hoax, a hoax he partly admitted to Greg Long while he interviewed him in his mansion. There is no muscle movement to explain, you can't draw bones on suits and assume that those would be the proportions inside (otherwise Barney the Dinosaur would also qualify as being outside human limits), and btw, all professional suits are not "one piece jumpsuits", they are TWO piece suits, just like Patty. Feel free to explain away the headpiece I gave you the link to, the odds of it being a coincidence is simply mathematically impossible. Or you can explain the diaper butt, the upside down shoulder muscle, slant opening in the front, or the seam line around the waist.
You're joking right! 😆
@@SquiddyOnethe top Hollywood guys say they could have never produced something that authentic looking in those days and even if they had it would not have had breast. Never! That's the giveaway no dude would have jumped in a suit with naked breast swinging. Too homophobic.😏👎🏾
Bob H was muscular then. He used to play football.
Thinker Thunker does a great breakdown and explains why it cannot be Bob H, or any human in a suit. Also MK Davis has some great videos on why it cannot be a suit.
Absolutely. The film evidence stands on its own as unequivocally authentic.
MK Davis videos are great. Leaves no doubt.
@@steven_k117 They really don't. Have you seen his recent work? Some other guy has apparently invented or applied some processing technology that cleans up the image. The results are astounding, much more detail comes out.
Some say it’s Ai in the newest photos given to MK davis, but I believe mkdavis and its genuine
It is Bob H. You could not find anyone with Patty's distinct but cumberson natural gate other than Bob. Perfect match.
Knowing how terrible ape suits were made in 1966, I find it unlikely Paterson found a suit with muscles. Look at the movies made back then.
It looks like a crappy 1960s ape suit.
It looks like a cheap Hollywood monkey suit to me.
I'd like to see a man that size fill out a suit back then..that's alot of suit to fill out and stride with such ease
Not really. The film is poor quality, so it is impossible to make any claims about how well made the suit is. That said, it walks like a person. @@ranger-uw3gw
@@jamesfetherston1190Not if you understand anatomy, which you obviously dont.
To sarcastically say "the creature obligingly emerged from the woodlands" to be filmed is completely disregarding both Patterson and Gimlin's account of how. the sighting actually happened. It didn't "emerge"; they came upon it suddenly on the trail when they walked around a fallen tree root system at a dry creek bed. According to the account, the opposite side of the creek was concealed from their view until they came around this obstruction, then they spotted the creature squatting down on the opposite side of the creek. As soon as they and their horses spotted it, all three of their horses spooked and reared up, and one of them - the small pack horse carrying their gear - bolted ahead. Roger's horse reared so hard it fell over while he was still in the saddle, while Bob struggled to control his own horse. While all this was going on and Roger was scrambling to get away from his horse and to get the camera out of his saddlebag, the creature had already stood up and started to retreat. That would explain the jerky chaotic quality of the first half of the nearly 60 seconds of footage; Roger was trying to catch up with it to get a closer shot. It seems highly unlikely a hoaxer who'd invested a considerable amount of time and money into creating a costume, hiring an actor, etc. would waste 30 seconds of film with footage that's basically unusable (not to mention that 3-4 minutes of the reel in the camera had already been used up with scenic shots, which was Patterson's explanation for the segment being under a minute long; the reel ran out and by the time he was able to put a new one in the camera the creature was well out of sight). This segment of the film is rarely seen and wasn't released with the famous segment because it's so confusing and unstable; at one point Roger fell and it looks like he dropped the camera as it seems to literally go upside down. But the creature is still visible in most of the frames, and they have since been closely analyzed. A couple of frames show a full back view of the creature, with one of its back legs raised while it's taking a step, and the bottom of its foot and five toes are visible, much like a human foot or one that would be expected of a bipedal ape. So if that was a man in a costume, he was either barefoot or the costume included feet with well-defined toes. Still, of course none of this is absolute proof. But I find it disingenuous the way some skeptics pointedly disregard certain aspects of the film that contradict their hoax theories. There's strong confirmation bias on both sides.
Most people are dumb. The average IQ is 90-ish... which means a large portion of people fall below that. Most of them are here leaving dumb comments about gorilla suits.
You must have missed the part where Pattison's neighbor was hired to play the part of Bigfoot and the costume company where the outfit was purchased.
Multiple people have "come forward" over the years claiming to have been either the "actor in the costume" or the person who made the "costume". None have ever provided any evidence or corroboration. And they can't all be telling the truth. @@Bigwave2003
@@Bigwave2003well you must have missed the part where when Bob Hieronymus and Morris tried to recreate the suit and the film it looked hilariously fake. That's because Morris never created a suit and Bob Hieronymus never wore a suit.
but WHY would Patterson film the leaves and use that much film footage if he KNEW HE MIGHT happen upon Bigfoot? If you look a the footage, too, the trees foliage isn't hat bright fallish coloration either and Gimlan said Patterson was filmiing the beautiful tree colors of the Autumn. Also, WHY didn't he bring extra movie fil,? I mena common sense: my aunt whenI was a kid brought THREE rolls at Christmas and Thanksgiving, just in case one was bad- then he had TWO rolls of movie film to use, not one!
Here's what actually happened: A known liar, criminal, and fraudster tricked his friend into seeing "Bigfoot."
Rubbish. No wonder you haven't got a name!
exactly
A no name liar said it was him in a female suit, lol.
So prove it. Film a video using materials and techniques only available in 1967 that would match or best this footage.
Spoiler, you will never bother because you aren't that self assured of your claim. GTFO.
All these years later, hundreds of documentaries. Most of them say it's very difficult or impossible for a human to move that way and the suit is too good. They analyze the footage, enhance stills, fly in people for interviews. Has anyone actually tried to replicate the footage using materials and technology available at the time? Patterson and Gimlin were not professional film makers, so if a 'just decent' Hollywood filmmaker cannot make a convincing copy, that should confirm. If they can, would they guess it was easy enough for a complete amateur on a shoestring budget to do?
I will say it's not very reassuring that not a single Bigfoot has ever been hit by a car or a body found, not even any from hundreds of years ago that could prove they existed at one time, if not now. All those footprints and no scat? If they eat meat, they should be mobile hunters, making discovery easy. If plant eaters, just stake out nearby berry bushes and fruit trees with trail cameras. Bigfoots still gotta eat.
Yes and no bones. Even if they bury their dead, there would have to be the odd Bigfoot who got separated and died somewhere far away from “home”. Just like people find skeletons of lost hikers.
It is easy today and it was fairy easy back then to create such a set-up. The suit wasn't that good, it was off-the-rack with some added padding and "breasts" added for more of an intriguing look. This wasn't all Patterson's doing, others were involved. It was a great opportunity to make money. And it worked.
Hundreds of documentaries produced by people who want to believe something doesn't make them credible. It only means there's hundreds of documentaries demonstrating how people are willing to believe whatever they want and the lengths they will go to prove their opinions are right.
The BBC actually did try to replicate the film using materials available at the time in a show called "X Creatures", if my memory serves me correctly.
It was hilariously, obviously a guy in a costume, which lead to a surreal moment where the narrator and hosts proudly proclaim they've replicated the footage when the suit used in the show looks _nothing_ like the PGF.
The clip was on RUclips, I'll have a look and see if it still is. I can't share links but I can relay how to find it. It was a pain in the rear to find it the first time for some reason (maybe I had the name of the show incorrect?)
Edit - Yep, just search for "BBC Patterson Gimlin film recreation", should be the first result. The thumbnail isn't a joke either.
Just watched it, thanks. You would think a professional could be more convincing, especially with the low resolution and shakiness of the camera. They said how even an amateur could do this, and then they couldn't.@@Telcontar86
I think it’s noteworthy that it was filmed in 1967. It’s easy for the guy who made Jurassic park in 1993 to say it’s fake but in 1967 an advanced ape suit like that would have been unthinkable. For comparison planet or the apes came out in 1968 and won awards for the special effects of the ape costumes which really just looked like people in ape costumes…
It's noteworthy to mention that Hollywood doesn't make movies using Kodachrome film because it is too blurry. Which is exactly why Roger shot it in Kodachrome. The other reels used Ektachrome.
The guy who did the makeup for Planet of the Apes said he couldnt recreate the Patterson Footage with unlimited time and budget
Another famous makeup artist in Hollywood once said” If that is a man in a suit,… it is the best i have ever seen for the time and the creator needs to be working in pictures”…… from 50 years of studying and going back over the footage,… it is 100% real!!!
I know there is something out there, i saw it with my coysin & friend it was watching us slid in the woods on a hill we werent suppose to be out there but it was huge i think male well over 7ft and the biggest muscles i ever saw and it was ape but moved like a man , we ran it didnt chase or it wouldve caught us , and we were 10 now 54 i think i was having fun watching us but in the srea a farmer reported a big ape so did hunters and to this day they are seen so in heavy wood srea country areas where there is woods they can hide
Thank you very much for sharing that, but would you please consider investing in some punctuation? Reading that was almost stressful.
Bob Hieronymus or anyone else has never produced the suit. All reproductions of the suit by Morris don't even come close to what you see on the film and when Morris tried to recreate the film with one of his suits it looked hilariously fake.
The original film is not missing, Rodger Patterson's widow has the film and in fact Bill Munn's made a digital frame by frame copy of it when he did his analysis. The detail is stunning and you can find his analysis here on RUclips.
Of course when you cannot discredit the film you tried to attack the character of those who made it which is a common tactic used by people who have no other facts to back up their claims. Just like it says in this story when this is shown to people in the movie industry who's not afraid to be laughed at by saying it's real, they say it's real and cannot be a man in the suit created with the technology or materials of 1967.
Bill Nunn! I was having trouble remembering his name, thank you.
Have you looked into the work of MK Davis. He's discovered things on the film that no one has after he too traveled to the widow and even had her make a gold cd copy of the film.
The hands on the creature have the thumbs moving. The mouth moves. There is a braid running down the side of her face. Their is no Saginal crest as the top of her hair is in a ponytail. Also she is carrying something on her left side which looks to be attached to a lanyard around her neck.
@@MJIZZELNo, but I’ll check it out. Thank you.
Wrong -
Six Million Dollar Man - Bigfoot Director's Cut
ruclips.net/video/B6DUErcl3a0/видео.html
The original IS missing. All knowledgeable Bigfooters are aware of this. It’s in their books. Munns did his work on a variety of copies. See his book, “When Roger Met Patty,” starting on page 32. It’s too bad Munns wasn’t more explicit about the original being missing.
There was this show on Discovery, they went to the exact same spot and put the camera in the same spot, and had someone walk the path. There is no way it was faked, no human could walk those strides in any suit no matter how big the person was.
Of course a human could walk like that, just watch the film, a human is walking like that.
@@spankynater4242 your an idiot if you think a human is that tall lol but hey, believe what you want. This video proves nothing. Just some guy trying to discredit the footage with 0 proof of anything.
You ever seen footage of Bob Heironimus walking? He walks like the monkey-suit guy in the film.
Not at all. He straightens his leg repeatedly. The figure walks with a bent knee with every step. It's straightest when she fully strides, but bent with all her weight on it.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 I don't see that, so it's a subjective opinion.
This is fake. Let's see as of today 55 years later no one has been able to film a Big Foot except these 2 men. In 1967 yes I'd believe it but not 55 years later. One of the most famous special effects man in Hollywood Stan Smith says it's a guy in a suit. I trust his judgement. Just like the recent filmed train footage of a supposed Big Foot. That was hilarious anyone bought that... Let's see you tell a buddy to go out in a big foot costume when a scheduled train comes by and the filmer will be on the train and your buddy pops up dressed as Big Foot. Then you film it claiming it's Big Foot.
There's more than two compelling pieces of evidence though. Tell me you're unaware of this topic without actually telling me you're unaware of this topic.
@@williamseneyjr.6277 COMMON RATIONALE SENSE is my compelling reason that this video is 110% fake. This video was taken in 1967. Comparing technology today to 1967... Fifty Seven YEARS later and NO ONE has provided better video than this 1967 Video? Give me a break. You want to really find BIG FOOT in Northern California? I mean REALLY find evidence of Big Foot. Here is a plan. Get one of those Tech Billionaire's who want to become famous to spend 100 million dollars and install Motion Activated Cameras ALL OVER NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Woods... They can use a scientific map to display the Camera's in strategic areas. Big Foot is REAL right? That means Big Foot has to come out at some point to find food eventually and activate these camera's. WHY doesn't anyone try this? Because there is no BIG FOOT DUH... Hey more power to the tourism industry for promoting Big Foot. GET A CLUE Big Foot doesn't exist. Big Foot is a fun Urban Legend THAT's IT. I take back what I just posted spend that $100 million Dollars on feeding impoverished children instead...
Sorry, you got your facts wrong. That is not what he said and I tend to agree that you don't know much about the subject. The train incident however I do believe is fake although one heck of a coincidence. If I remember right he was crouched down on his knees on a hillside when the train went by. To me, he looks like he has human proportions and not BF proportions. The hillside BF is a poor choice to compare with the Patterson film. The only thing that compares is the independence day Bigfoot carrying a baby.
That Hollywood special effects expert sounded like sour grapes. If this was so easy to recreate, it would have been done countless times by now, including the visible muscles flexing under the hair. The fact that this footage is from the 60s makes it even more mindblowing.
You can't see muscles flex under hair, you can't even see them flex through body fat.
Yea even if it probably is a Suit , Stan Winston was wrong Saying its a bad one
If the guy can’t produce a suit that good, he’s definitely not going to admit someone else did.
@@spankynater4242 Yes and no. You won't see fine details like when skin bunches up with a muscle contraction, but depending on hair/fur length you'll be able to see general movement. If, for example, my leg was covered in shorter fur you could still make out that my calf is flexing, but you wouldn't be able to see finer detail, just the overall shape change.
Interesting post.....but one missing topic is the depth that anthropologists have gone to studying the film.
When they do, they find multiple examples of how Patty's body proportions do NOT match a human's.
Also, Heironimous has lost all credibility....so what we may have is non-ideal messengers of a true story.
More likely, what we have are anthropologists seeing what they want to see, rather than reporting objective observations.
@@spankynater4242 Scientific rigour, peer review etc means they literally have to be objective or they most probably would lose their position or reputation.
@@pitchblackjack In theory. But you would be wrong if you thought personal biases don't interfere.
How has Heironimus lost credibility? Serious question.
@martinharris5017 when questioned, he couldn't give answers to many items he should know if he was there.
He also isn't physically constructed like Patty.....so it cannot possibly be him, or any other human, in a costume.
Sure.... so the best thing Hollywood could do at this time was Planet of the Apes, yet, we are to believe a carnival shop created such a costume (and never being able to reproduce any of it). Sounds credible... 🙄
The fake of the century that made those guys a lot of money, the guy in the gorilla suit was never paid the $1,000 he was promised😂
Never would have been paid 1000 dollars at all.
You can't fake where joints are. You can fake forearm length with an extension or you can wear shoulder pads to beef up your size. But you cannot put a human in a suit and change where are joints are and where they need to be to flex. The body proportions on this animal are way off from a human being. It's been measured extensively. You can't stretch a human to match where the joints are in this "Bigfoot" or whatever you want to say it is, but it's not Bob Gimlin in a suit. You can also take measurements of the nearly countless idiots IN gorilla suits and low and behold the joints are exactly where they need to be. Not here. So, your conclusion is BS.
Thanks for the video. This is a good attempt at a balanced account - something that is unusual. However, it does not go into the recent research on the body proportions (torso-leg-arm) and the gait (extremely difficult for a human to reproduce). See the ThinkerThunker and MK Davis channels in particular, where they analyse this in detail. Also, it does not properly challenge the views of the debunkers. Stan Winston says the suit could easily be reproduced, but does not show how - what fabric was available in 1967 that shows all the muscles rippling? Phillip & Amy Morris never produced a replica suit. No one has ever even identified the fabric let alone made a replica. Any padding would hide muscle movement, which is clearly visible in the film. Bob Heironymous’s accounts have many serious inconsistencies which are not mentioned here, and he never replicated any of the Bigfoot walk & body proportions when filmed.
I liked the points the critic made that the hair looked too uniform, the breasts weren't primate like, the glutes weren't separated and the animal if it was one, was too calm. They all convince. The breasts especially are like hairy adult human ones. Pattinson drew a BF with breasts for a book he did a year earlier...
Planet Of the Apes won the award for there suits ! If this was a true suit , Then Roger & Bob got F#CKED out of that award ! For this 1 was SO much better & I'm sure they didn't have that movies money pay roll to play with ? BUT , all these suit people NEVER bring this point up , do they , even as simple as it is ?
@@robertd.7060 Is the suit that fantastic? Or is just too far away to make much out, shot on grainy film and then we fill in the details for ourselves? I sometimes see muscle shimmer in the fur. And then sometimes I don't. As for the odd gait, I also think the person is jogging, or trotting at least, but the film is then slowed down - it's always played at the wrong shutter speed, something Pattinson was coy about.
Also , The gait and Lateral motion of this creature is NOT possible to perform by a human in a suit . in 2023 Maybe , but NOT in 1967
Also why would you hoax a female surely easier to do a male
Bigfoot wore a bigfoot suit so everyone would think they're fake and leave them alone. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Big Foot is harmless i have cooked Beef Jerky with them .
😂
😆😂😂🤣
The narrator states how convenient it is that the original film is lost. But who ultimately gains the most from the missing original film clip - Patterson, who died only five years after producing it, or an authoritative establishment who aggressively seeks to discredit the whole thing? If the whole thing really is just a big sloppy guy in a monkey suit - then why does the establishment have to struggle and work so hard to discredit something that is supposed to be a laughingstock in the first place? (Something to consider)
👍👍👍
I have SEEN the BAD [ BoB ] doing the Patty walk on pavement , NOT in the woods & he still walks with his feet pointed OUT words , like humans do , NOT straight & in a all most straight line ? His walk strides are way to short , also ? So, if he couldn't match this walk on pavement , HOW , in the hell are you going to do it on a rocky shore line, with holes , trees & roots around your feet ? Also the prints were 4 to 6 in deep & old BAD BoB doesn't have that much pounds on his frame ?
@@robertd.7060 I completely agree with you, these are all very good points that you are making. Researchers who have studied biomechanics have suggested that this is a non-human gate and cannot be reproduced by a man in a monkey suit simply attempting to mimic the walk itself - it is fundamentally different. Not to mention that the legs involved here are of a completely different set of proportions. No man in a suit can fake that either. Thanks for commenting!
@@robertd.7060bullshit! Where is Bigfoot's penis?!
Can you tell me anything the 'establishment' did to 'aggressively' discredit it? Anything at all? A few folks said they thought it was real. A few other folks said they thought it wasn't. I want a better answer than that.
Not just fake, but a painfully obvious one. Unnatural gait, and vivid shiny fur that looks freshly shampooed. Cool as a cucumber when it sees two guys on horseback in the middle of nowhere. Doesn't even get in a hurry about evading a potential predator. Well within firearm range, yet two fully equipped and seasoned hunters armed with rifles (that claim they were close enough to smell it) don't get a clean shot off. Arms swinging about; very unlike a wild animal. Patterson and Gimlin are lucky they didn't spend time in jail for fraud.
Not a single hair, tooth, bone or even one little testable fragment of remains throughout the entirety of recorded history. No credible photography or even the slightest bit of valid evidence for any Bigfoot claims. Not one! It's a shocking testament to the gullibility of humanity that these guys weren't laughed out of academia.
I disagree that it’s an obvious fake, the unnatural gait is what makes it so unlikely to have been a fake. Humans don’t normally lift our rear leg so high. Humans also don’t have our palms facing behind us when we walk and we definitely don’t swing our arms so far forward nor do we momentarily close our fists at the peak of the arm swing. I think those biomechanics are very reflective of the fact that this creature posses the ability to knuckle walk on all fours and it simply can’t fully separate all of the component movements of walking on two legs vs. all fours.
If I was that big and intimidating, I wouldn’t be afraid of any man. The wilderness is Bigfoot’s turf.
Yeah the shiny fur, they should’ve made Bob H wear the suit for 24 hours, roll around in mud, drag himself through a hedge backwards etc… that might’ve looked convincing.
The unnatural gait is from a guy wearing an ape suit, who isn't used to wearing an ape suit. He has to make exaggerated movements just to keep all that extra cumbersome weight moving.@@HankTheTank23
@MrsGypsumFantastic My only argument is how many times do you see footage of bears or gorillas in the wild and they're muddy and filthy? if these animals know how to keep themselves clean then why not expect the same from Bigfoot?
One thing confuses me. Patterson said his horse neighed and threw him off, after which he began filming. So, it seems to me that Bigfoot’s behavior in such a situation is completely unrealistic. She hears wild sounds (the neighing of a horse), sees two creatures (a horse and a man) and CALMLY WALKS. Moreover, she only turns around ONCE. And then calmly, without turning around, she moves on. I can’t believe that as she moved away from the two large creatures that made the wild sound, she didn’t turn around again or even speed up.
That has always been MY thinking....when an animal is caught by surprise...it looks startled....hesitates...deciding if it will attack or run.....this "creature"......is just strolling away....casually looks back......like saying...."oh hi there"....and keeps going in no hurry to get away......odd for a "wild animal".....
I've never thought this was anything other than someone in a costume.
Ignorance is bliss. Remain blissful.
@@davidcopson5800 Smugness is your bliss.
Patterson and Gimlin appeared at the store at the right time. Gimlin was already in the film when Patty appeared. People found footprints a man cannot make. It wouldn't be unlikely for you to find footprints if you went there now.
Fact logger Ray Wallace made the prints for fun. His grandson can confirm that.
There are alot of liars making claims the can't substantiate where the film is concerned. The video is too good. @@lauras3612
Not fact at all. The Wallace's couldn't duplicate the tracks the way they thought Ray did it. The prints got stuck in mud, and couldn't even make a foot shape. Almost killed themselves faking the long strides by hanging onto the back of a pickup. That would be pretty obvious.
I like how nobody ever finds it suspicious that Heironimus took so long to get mad about being paid $1,000 dollars in the late '60s-early '70s. Nobody ever heard of him until after Patterson's passing.
Long after. 30 years after the film.
Biggest thing to place doubt now is that with now everyone carrying a cell phone for the last 20 years and we still have not had better film.
You're saying this as though phone cameras all have telephoto lenses and people are constantly out in deep uninhabited woods with their phones out. You're falling into the same goofy logic-trap as people who 'wonder' why there aren't more photos of UFOs in the cellphone era--- you ever try taking a photo of a plane over 5000 feet up? How's that come out, can you read the name on the side of the plane? LMAO, you can't counter what you imagine is 'bullshit' with more of your own bullshit.
cell phones are trash good close up trash distance
lol.. there's literally hundreds of hours of footage of various sightings. Go look.
Lots of good footage out there. And most of the time people are surprised when they see it.
If P & G could make monkey suits that good in 1967 they'd have been so wealthy they wouldn't have needed to go through the woods looking for Bigfoot.
Exactly. The two had no money to speak of.
They “made monkey suits this good?” How can you tell it a “good” suit? This grainy footage doesn’t show a good or bad suit either way.
Not true. even with the quality of this film, muscles are seen moving under the skin. And breasts??? LOL! Who would do that?@@fman4234
@@fman4234 While you can't examine quality close up with high resolution you can see what appears to be the contractions and relaxations of muscle use, a slight bulge that somewhat resembles a herniation, and a completely natural flex in the foot. For the time, a suit that appears to have workable muscles with perfectly mimicked foot flex would bring in bank if they wanted to sell them
@@fman4234It's only grainy to those that only ever watched this single Bigfoot video. But go ahead and pretend you have insight, if it makes you feel better.
P.S. I really hope you haven't reproduced and added to our gene pool, because you would see a toddler in a duck costume and proclaim that it's obviously a duck.
The photographer was working on a bigfoot movie for a year previous to "capturing" the footage. It looks like a typical gorilla costume, shot at a distance. The subject walks like a human in a suit(every other bipedal creature known to mankind ambles slightly from side to side as they walk). Despite all the advancements to improving the mobility, and quality, of cameras and a ever-growing community of "hunters" not single frame of higher quality photographic evidence has ever been captured. Despite many people knowing the alleged hunting grounds of these creatures no scat, no hair, no cadaver, no evidence of any kind save various "footprints"(which are VERY easily faked) have ever been produced.
Over the years, it has generated quite a tidy profit and a viable industry has sprung up around it.
People still think this is real? Really?
People see what they want to see.
There are no other truly bipedal creatures known to mankind than humans and Bigfoot, or its associated cousins throughout the world.
Like you. No suit was that good in 1967, and the tracks back it up as a real bf.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Uh...that is NOT a good suit, it looks like what it is, a man in a costume.
@@snarzetax it's not a costume. It's a female bf. The tracks have never been shown to be fake. They are the best evidence the creature is real. Many have dermal ridges, impossible to fake.
AS someone who has sewn since age eight, I can tell you this is a suit the people they say that made it were costumers, and think about it: There were costumes, clothing that was sewn by hand THREE hundred years ago that cannot be duplicted to day because we as humans LOST alot of talent with the modern age. The costume people ( I forget hteir names) admitted making it, too so why does NO ONE believe it? I can tell you- all those men out there that do NOT think like seamstresses, the zipper was probably and most likely on the LEFT under the arm down the wasit on the LEFT SIDE down the thigh and MANY dresses made by designers (including Don Loper, Elois Jenssen) in the 1950's were made with zippers on the LEFT side under the arm so the zipper did NOT ruin the aesthetic of the gown or dress by sdesigners. Didn't think of that, did you men???? :) NO dirt or caked mud/leaves debris on the bottom f the thick fake foot soles! Can't explain it, right? This is Bob H in the suit- he showed that he walked exactly like this, not to mention BG and BP stories have changed so many time sover the decades. This is BOB H the size everything lines up. I tried walking like this in front of our floorr mirror and I can do it and I am a gal! ALso LOOK at that creatue or whatever you want to call it- I call it BOB H in a suit- LOOK right in the center WHAT do you SEE? and NO ONE mentions what I see there. Because it would RUIN the whole fantasy that is why people probably want to keep the fanstasy alive. I can walk like this easily. BOB H HAS to walk like that AWAY from the camera because if it was REAL creature having an AA in ANthropology , it would have lunged at them or ran at them (as Peter Byrne even states, a 'demonstration charge' if these people and horses are in its territory, but BOB H couldn't becuase he was in padded slipper feet so he wasn't going, "OUCH, OOH, THAT HURTS"! walking along there. They had to put thick soles on the feet! He ocouldn't lunge at them or jump over the debris, limbs tress debris becaue he could NOT, he was NOT capable of doing that with ease liek a real Bigfoot would and he would be foudn out instantly; he IS NOT a real Bigfoot , PLUS the viiewer would SEE that he was not so the logical thing was to have him come in, enter stage left, walk AWAY from thm , exit stage RIGHT. Oh and NO horses are running wild in the camera frames, especially since BG said they were so spooked??? ODD, isn't it? Watch OLD docmuentaries . c.1967-1970 and scinetsts say it is to ohuman like in its walking and looks llike a man in a cheap suit! all of a sudden it has all changed. and think of this, in one of those old docs -a man of literary stature said, "with all the wildlife photographers out there daily in the NW, photographing all types of birds, prey, animals, WHY don't one of them spot one and photograph it? Why are the ONLY films, photographs of bigfoot taken by BELIEVERS?" ???? That really makes you THINK. Kim
This one votes for Trump, for sure😅
The creature isnt looking over her right shouler, per se. She cant. Her chin being lower than her shoulder, she pivots her upper body to move her shoulder aside so that she can turn her head to look at the men and their horses making such a ruckus.
Weirdly enough.. I personally think it’s real. It’s scientifically inconclusive… but the gait, lack of advanced costume design at the time and modern analysis using new computer tech all points to either a phenomenal hoax or a real biological creature. When seeing the movements of the creature broken down frame by frame… and seeing the leg muscles flex… it might be genuine. The calf muscles are super visible, and stand out as possibly natural compared to most other “footage”.
Proof it is fake: Patty's head: ruclips.net/video/mB1MM77Nxno/видео.html
@@eminboztepeonce and for all, it's a real creature 🙄!!
Get over it.🙏😂
@@aaroncourchene4384 What a great rebuttal, LOL.
Right at 18:30 it's explained that Bob Heronimous was the guy paid $1000 to wear that ape costume and it had shoulder pads and stuff to alter his body. It goes on to say that that Bob ended up not getting paid!!
@@metalmike570 it hardly looks like a costume though. If it is it's skin tight. You can literally see muscular movements and fat movement in the thigh.
Just a reminder. A year before the footage Patterson published a book with a sketch of his of a female bigfoot with breasts. Coincidence?
Sasquatches are primates, primates are mammals, mammals have breasts.
He also drew male bigfoots mostly. His whole book is eyewitness encounters, so of course there would be a couple of females. That actually adds credibility to bigfoot as a real species, that females and young have seen repeatedly.
So obviously a man in a suit it's embarrassing that it's still being seriously discussed.
Patty was not a man. And nobody wears a female ape suit.
Obviously? OK guy.
Obviously not a man in a 60s suit.
There’s a 100% chance it is a human being in a monkey suit!!!
Wouldn't bet on that.
You'd better not go to Las Vegas!
I have lived in Northern California since birth. I grew up camping , fishing and hunting in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and lower Cascades. I dont know if Bigfoot exists but I know that ive had some situations where I have heard strange calls and seen large bipedal tracks that crossed a creek and traveled up a steep hillside. They were approximately 16-18 " in length with a easy 4' separation or gate between each track. And whatever made them was heavy because they were over a inch deep on dry decomposed granite substrate. And they weren't bear tracks or any other commonly seen animal tracks. They were definitely bipedal and 20+ miles from the nearest human population.
Skeptics think that there's a shit-ton of 7 or 8ft tall people running around barefoot in the remote wilds leaving footprints with a hope in hell that another human will come along and actually see them and be fooled...to me that's more preposterous than an acual large, undiscovered species! One thing about hoaxers is that they WANT their hoax to be discovered. They want to see the reaction, hear about it, get a laugh. They'd be putting prints in someone's yard, or somewhere busy, not out in these highly remote areas.
People STILL think this film actually shows a "Bigfoot"? Are you effing kidding me?
@Jedi13sm2 Ah! You're right! It's the Bigfoot alright!!!😝😜🥳🙄
Cave drawings and tribal stories (worldwide)are some of the most convincing things for me. There’s just too many of them out there. They can’t ALL be fake!
They aren't "fake." But that's not the same thing as lacking convincing evidence the images are of real Bigfoots.
And yet no Bigfoot skull or bones of any kind have ever been found
Six Million Dollar Man - Bigfoot Director's Cut
ruclips.net/video/B6DUErcl3a0/видео.html
I hear you. I like what Survivorman said. He said “I’ve spent most of my life in the woods, and I’ve never found a bear skull or bones, and I’ve never found mountain lion skulls or bones.“ I don’t know. Some people say that big foots (or big feet?) bury their dead. I’m just glad I’ve never seen one! If I ever did, the smell that I would leave behind would make it run away! 😂
Sure they can. People are dumb. They thought seals and walruses were mermaids.
I've been to Bluff Creek, camped at Mt. Shasta, Provo Canyon Utah and other Bigfoot hotspots.
But my sighting didn't happen anywhere around such more remote places, but in the state of Maryland, just a few miles up the Potomac River from D.C. and the Smithsonian Institute.
I'm feeling there's hope with humanity now that nobody wants to know anything about your "sighting."
@@iniquity123 Eat💩!
I want to know about your sighting... BF is a hunter and has an incredibly high IQ...
@@billyclegg3084 A hunter with a high IQ?
Sorry Billy, but this subject of Bigfoot goes way, way beyond that.
It's beyond what we humans are really capable of understanding.
When the ancient indigenous peoples talk of these creatures as beings that can walk between two worlds, we should listen.
C'mon, the guy was trying to get his self-published book about a bigfoot turned into a movie and then a few days later just happened to catch a bigfoot walking right in front of him on film... Whipping out a camera to film something back then wasn't nearly as quick and easy as it is now and he still manages to get the squatch on film. Yeah I agree with Stan Winston, I'm calling bullshit on that one.
I can prove this bigfoot is a guy in a suit and I want to go on Coast to Coast with George Knapp with my findings and have Dave Paulides on there as well because he assumes it is real. One cannot assume! Also, sometimes it itake seeing it from a different angle or perspective - a WOMAN"S perspective, and when go on Coast ot Coast A.M., everyone wil hear what I have found! I studied Anthropoligy for three years when I was going for my AA degree years ago before my BA but I found my evidence recently in an unusual way.Kimberly
yeh and hes got a very still shot considering its handheld :P
Many pounds of manure in this!! 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩🙊
@@alanmacdonald1457 straight up lol
@@alanmacdonald1457It’s shaky in the original because his horse fell on top of him after being spooked by the creature and he was limping while walking and filming
Using my skill as an artist, I can see that it's proportions correspond with a human: It's between 7 and 8 "heads" high, the groin (or the point where the torso forks into the legs) is halfway between the top of the head and the bottom of the feet. The arms come down to level with the groin or halfway down the thigh.
It's not an Old World ape since the arms are too short and the legs are too long and all the New World monkeys have tails so I doubt it is an undiscovered Cebid. Also that stride on a rocky surface doesn't speak of bare feet to me rather shod feet.
Also there is Occam's Razor which says the answer with the most unproven clauses is probably wrong. Bigfoot has never been captured or killed so it has never been SCIENTIFICALLY documented. The same cannot be said for gorilla suits and faux fur, the existence of which we can prove.
Lets just say I would be flabbergasted if a specimen was ever written up in a peer reviewed journal.
Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or whatever it's called has been a personal fascination for most of my life. My only qualification is that I grew up as a boy/young man near Olympia, Washington during the 1970s which is "Bigfoot country". Our house was in a heavily forested area at the southernmost point of Puget Sound. I spent a lot of time back then on rocky pebbly beaches and in fishing boats exploring coves and small islands, including some with native American (first nation) communities where belief in Sasquatch was common. Also my bedroom window faced out onto deep dark woods where furry critters (raccoons, skunks, deer, etc.) were frequent night time visitors, so was used to hearing their scurrying sounds at night especially in summertime. Of course the 70's were primetime Bigfoot mania and the local movie theaters in the city (The State, Capitol, and Olympic) frequently showed Bigfoot "documentaries" which scared the hell out of some of us and made us "believers". I had some so-called encounters as well, when late at night camping on beaches or in the woods my friends and I heard snorting grunting sounds and detected a very bad musky smell from something out there, and even a couple times threw rocks at whatever it was and ran away scared sh*tless. I had many nightmares and more night time freak-outs about Bigfoot being right outside my window or the front door when everyone else was fast asleep. I still get chills up my spine and the hair stands up on my arms when I relive those thoughts. Does Bigfoot really exist? In my wildest dreams I think yes and in my daylight consciousness I hope it/they do exist, because I choose to believe we are not as "alone" as we think, and I prefer a world where Bigfoot/Sasquatch does exist. I now live in southeast Asia (northern Thailand) and have traveled all over Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and a bit of southern China, and have seen several native bear species, some of who can walk upright almost like a human, but their arms aren't long and don't swing like a human so I don't believe Bigfoot is a bear. I have also seen a lot of primates including gibbons, macaques, orangutans, lemurs, etc. and I think Bigfoot must be a sort of ape, maybe a "missing link" who has smartly avoided detection and is a master of concealment. Anyway that is my personal belief and I sincerely hope "they" are out there.
In 1967, few people had video recording devices, yet Bigfoot was recorded. Today, everyone has a recording device and no Bigfoot footage. That about sums it up.
There is a lot of bigfoot footage today; however, the Patterson-Giblin footage is one of the best...
If this is the best.... it's def not real.
@@richbrake9910
@@richbrake9910 where? im yet to see any. where are the droppings? where are the skeletons? you cant just have one of a species, it dosnt work like that.
There are many films of Bigfoot taken since 1967. You are obviously unaware of them.
people are recording their bigfoot all over the place today....facing that fact would have ruined what you thought was going to be a clever comment....
I hate when people say no one could have made a suit like that back then.
They couldn't, the guy who made the costumes for plannet of the apes (the best costume maker in the world at that time) said that it himself
My Grandma could have sewn that suit in the1950's.
@@ilikeguitars3511 In addition to this, the people that claimed to have made the suit did not produce a replica or other suits to showcase their skills that would be needed.
Whether the film is real, or a fake, immaterial. The creatures do exist. I've seen one once. My wolf had an encounter with one and it traumatized her. Every time we would go walking, if she smelled them, she'd get scared and want to go home. And I wasn't going to argue with her. I've seen footprints of a juvenile a few times. I thought at first, they were footprints of some little kid with flat feet. I wear size nine and a half EEE shoes. And these footprints were smaller than my shoes. Like someone is going to fake little bitty Bigfoot footprints?
@@Maskstohidemasks : The creatures moved away sometime in 2014. In 2016, the county finally paved that dirt road, and in 2017, they clear cut that pine forest where Sara had her Bigfoot encounter.
Sara. Ah, of course. Is she made up too?
@@fman4234 : If you send me your complete email address, I'll send you a picture of Sara.
@Maskstohidemasks come on let him have his fun.
His life has to be pretty uneventful to be making stuff like this up.
Just play along to let him feel special.
@@thefinalboss2403 And. of course, his dog can't just be a dog. It has to be a wolf. Where do people get all these wolves to cross breed with domestic dogs?
Your conjecture of "what most likely happened," DID NOT happen, your guesswork is malarkey. Roger and Gimlin got real film footage of this huge giant ape, Bigfoot. I know this, because I did field work with a biologist from our State Fish & Wildlife Commission, on his free, off work, time, for 27 years. We found, one October, following very heavy rain, well over 140 well defined footprints in mud, taking many plaster casts of them. Eventually, I encountered one, so I Know for Certain, that at least one existed, and am sure many more do too, but they are rare, and widely scattered.
This is so interesting! Would you be willing to either share your story in writing or do an interview-type thing for my second channel (I have a small one already, but it has nothing to do with strange/mysterious things)? Of course, it's up to you, and privacy/personal boundaries would be respected. Appreciate your time either way!
@@chrisinreallife2022 No. Have no interests in publicity.
@@johnsullivan6532 Ok no problem
Additionally, I want nothing to do with anybody spreading paranormal malarkey related to Bigfoot. You sound like a fanatic, filled with malarkey.
It was actually "Hoss" from Bonanza moonlighting for a few extra bucks.
It's just a big hairy hippie....
Inb4 a thousand comments claiming it was a suit and it wad admitted fake on somebody's death bed. Nobody has ever seen a suit with realistic breasts on it
It's a short, blurry film without much detail. Having worked in costuming for theatre and film, I can think of half a dozen ways to build a suit like that on a fairly small budget. Just because nobody mass produces fur suits with breasts doesn't mean that it's impossible, or has never been done as a custom job before. It would actually be quite easy, and probably a fun job, though working with fur is always annoyingly messy.
There's been a few other documentaries about this film. And the majority of them concluded this to be a carefully crafted hoax. One of the documentaries said the same thing about the "suit." With enough time and staging, they could make a similar film. But they didn't really care too, since everyone knows it's fake 🙄
Not worth the effort to replicate. Every expert agrees 100% fake. They said at the time and they continue to agree 56 years later it is fake.
A lot of ignorant people make this claim about the costume. Go ahead and prove you can make it.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 I've got a 6'6" friend who does both leatherwork and extra work in the film industry. We know some pretty decent filmmakers between us. You pay for the necessary supplies, time, and travel, and we'll recreate this film. Just put up the cash, and I'd love to do it. I'm pretty sure that he'd jump at the chance to work on a Bigfoot suit and then play the starring role himself too. We both love this kind of challenge, but it's not free. If you'll pay, we'll do it.
I knew Roger; know him to be a good honest guy. I saw one of these giant apes, a male, that looked much the same as this female. So, I KNOW the truth, thus I pay NO attention at all, to Clowns claiming they faked the film, the ape, etc. They are full of baloney, period.
Thinker Thunker here on RUclips came up with the most scientific evidence to determine whether or not these videos and photos are of the real thing by taking the body ratios and comparing them to a human's so you can see by the measurements whether or not if it's a fake or the real deal and Patty is the real deal
well hes not very good at it because comparison shows a spitting image of Bob H. who has those same ratios.
@@zentriffid Problem there is where's that costume he supposedly wore ? That story is what's phony
@@rudybetta So all the evidence points to it being a hoax but they cant find the costume. Still a hoax. How about we look for some concrete evidence that bigfoot actually exists rather than decide it does on the evidence of a missing costume.
The way its walking is believable and you can feel the weight of it.
It really slams it's foot into the ground, doesn't it...
Dang straight! It knocked my phone right out of my hand.
Yes, you can almost hear it vocalizing as it walks along and turns to acknowledge the camera man: "dum, dee dum-dum, I swing my arms, dum, dee dum-dum, gotta keep moving, dum dee dum-dum, gonna make a thousand bucks, dum dee dum, dum, musn't fall down, dum dee dum-dum; take long strides but try not to over do it . . .
It walks like someone in a gorilla suit hamming it up for a camera about a 100 ft away.
@@residentpotato6023 Agreed
Six Million Dollar Man - Bigfoot Director's Cut
ruclips.net/video/B6DUErcl3a0/видео.html
bigfoot people are weird
Yes
Coming from a Bigfoot person Im inclined to agree. Some are very weird.
The two of them weren’t just riding horses in the backcountry. They were filming a fictional account of the Big Foot, by their own admission. And we have had testimony from the man who sold them the costume and from the man who wore it. These people did not profit from it.
I can see other comments talking falsehoods and distorting half-truths to keep this going. Just a basic appreciation of the facts tells you this has always been a hoax.
ruclips.net/video/sJ2uIQsGD-k/видео.htmlsi=axKrwvmmFETThVYs
"The man who sold them the costume". What a crock of horseshit. The only liars in this story are Philip Morris and Bob Heironimus.
@@Maskstohidemasks Just the attestations of two different people who describe the transaction in great detail, and who didn’t profit from doing so.
But just consider the odds: they set out to make a fictionalized account of the Big Foot creature, and WHILE DOING SO they happen to capture the clearest footage in history of the real Big Foot creature?
@@Maskstohidemasks They gave understandable reasons they were quiet for so long. But that only shows they weren’t looking to profit, unlike the filmers who turned their film into a traveling show right away. And your dubiousness is directed toward the costume seller and wearer first and foremost? Did you see the second paragraph in my last answer? I really don’t understand how anyone can take this film seriously at all. The very conditions of filming are preposterous to believe.
The bigfoot depiction in every contemporary movie or documentary always looks so hokey and obviously fake. The PGF, made in 1967, doesn’t look obviously so at all. This amazes me.
Where are the remains of those Bigfoot creatures that die? None have ever been found…ever.
Same place as bears. None are ever found.
When you go into the woods a find a bear, mountain lion, or even a deers skeleton ,I'll go ahead and show you my bigfoot skeleton
They bury their own. And most likely they live in caves. My opinion.
Primate bones are very rare.
When I was a child and saw this in the 80’s I thought it was a man in a suit and now I still say it’s a man in suit.
look at high resolution stabilized versions
Yeah, but you never were that bright, so...
You were correct.
Don't worry, nobody's perfect.
and you are correct
I would absolutely piss myself laughing if in the Patty footage when she turns to look at them she waves 😅😅😅😅
The only fact that I see in the movie about the Patterson movie makes me believe it is REAL is that the BREAST swings from right to left multiple of times. Apes suits no way can do that and I never saw breasts swing like this in any of the Planet of the Apes movies ever. It is a real Bigfoot.
My thoughts exactly 👍
So the official verdict of 'What Most Likely Happened' is 'We'll Let You Decide'
...
NO the gorilla costume was provided by that company that made them, and they tell you who wore it about 75% into this video. They're telling you it was arranged and the guy that wore it was a stuntman, and agreed to get paid for it but they didn't pay him.
@@metalmike570that's total bs.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 He starts talking about it at 15:20.
@@metalmike570 They explain that as evidence, but there's problems with it regardless. The supposed creators didn't make another suit to show they could make something that would perform in that manner, nor did they have similar quality creations that I'm aware of. Their only credible bit of evidence is the mention of football padding and a helmet lining up with the guy claiming to wear the suit, but at that point in time you see a somewhat bulkier torso and could immediately jump on football padding as an option so it's not concrete evidence.
@@DracoSafarius Ozzy is a werewolf ruclips.net/video/LplPi2CxNHI/видео.html
It was just footage of your mom being caught skinny dipping.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤮
Ah, the comedian of the year strikes again. Don't give up your day job!
@@davidcopson5800
But if I give it up, who will satisfy your wife's needs?
That always looks like someone in a hairy costume to me. I'd bet my Harley it is a hoax.
if someone can explain how these guys made such an amazing suit and never cashed in on the suit itself. Frankly the face, stimulated muscle under skin and fur, foot soles, hand details......
I think it's genuine truly hopefully they still are exant .....
What film are you referring to? Certainly not the Patterson-Gimlin film.
There was a second camerman with professional state of the art movie filming capacity being they knew how much scrutiny there was going to be as to if the original films authenticity........however the original film is real.@@fman4234
@@fman4234 in this video they didn't even take the time to show the entire footage...and they calling bigfoot and wendigo the same thing... so if anyone's profiting from the footage it's this channel
@@fman4234 I'm referring exactly to the Patterson film, there are plenty of frames and details that genuinely as should have been expected to go unnoticed but years later have been spotted why go to such great lengths on such a hoax if ultimately the extra details by their knowledge would never have been seen
@@fman4234 go view frames and stills from the footage you can see a full face muscle contracting, hell you can even make out hand and feet soles with printing !!!
Like it or not the film still stands as inconclusive. I lean towards real but only because I tried debunking it for myself and went wayyyyy down the rabbit hole.
Proof it is fake: Patty's head: ruclips.net/video/mB1MM77Nxno/видео.html
It is conclusive as a man in an ape suit.
@@jamesfetherston1190 Don't be stupid, you're not debunking anything by stating your own made-up bullshit like it's 'conclusive'. The only conclusive thing here is that you're willing to lie shamelessly and obviously.
This is ridiculous, it's so obviously a man in a suit I don't see the reason for all the concern over this film.
you obviously never studied it or seen the new scientific digital date on it
@@bonysminiatures3123 up yours peanut brain
Is this supposed to disprove the footage? - Come on man! This guy is just mad that he didn't get ''paid''. Nessie, Bigfoot, and the importance of having a technique to escape Quicksand are all staples of a GenX childhood...and NO ONE is going to take that from us!
Here in Canada, we switched to the metric system. Since then, all Canadians don't call them Bigfoot any longer, we now refer to them as Big Third Of A Metre!
Oof 😂
Patterson made about $60,000 selling the rights to the film. He spent every cent trying to find the creature again but never did. If he hoaxed this film and made money from it, then why keep looking for it? No-one hoaxing would do that.
Exactly. He spent everything on a wild goose chase from what I heard.
Clearly it's Michelle Obama on a camping trip 😂😂
"An incredible hoax..." What? A guy in an obvious costume is incredible?
Serious question:
What if it was a gorilla that had escaped from the nearest zoo, and was now living in the wild? This would explain why its musculature, stride, etc. looks so real. It would also explain why the creature just walked somewhat calmly away from two humans. A gorilla that had been in captivity may have lost its fear of humans. It would have seen them and thought, "Meh..just two humans. Whatever." And then gone about its business.
It would also explain why (to my knowledge) there has never been any other credible sighting of Bigfoot in the area, nor any proof of a Bigfoot population to have even produced this creature in the first place. It's because it was just one gorilla, living alone in the wild. It has since died, and its remains were eaten/destroyed by scavengers.
It's just a theory I have.
I remember when this footage first came out I was a kid and after seeing this I was afraid of being alone lol
AT THE TIME OF THE FILMING, Rick Baker was THE expert in ape suits and ape performance
he says "fake"
so i gotta go with "fake", because HE'S the guy to fool
but it LOOKS so good
Two Questions, please looking for answer:
1. Did anyone ever see Patty again after this sighting in this area ?
2. Why didn't Patty run away to the woods on the left immediately after seeing the two guys ?
@ConfederateLivesMatter2Your Momma told you it's fake so you wouldnt have nightmares. 😹
To the left was a steep, and overgrown hillside. Up the creek bed was the clearest path. There has been a great deal of documentation of the site over the years.
1. NO
2. You would have to get this female Ape to answer, but I am sure it had good reasons to go where it did, in the way it did.
This video is bull. He is being selective in his story telling and, making up stories I've never heard of and can't find. You can't see muscles moving under the skin; something we can't do to this day! Hay Bad Things, why don't you make a suit and copy the video. I'll bet you a million you can't copy the original.
How is anyone still acting like this is even remotely true? Besides for the sheer comical aspect.
Yeah, that is why they imitated a female. . .(LOL!)
Well done video!👍From the perspective of being professional RUclipsr and video creator with a lot of experience in video production. I think the story of this film footage is more fascinating than the Bigfoot Legend itself. How unlikely it was that this film production effort would become as wildly successful as it was. Patterson was not a professional film producer, he was not a special effects guy, he RENTED the camera and had amateurs with him. He was deep in the woods, dealing with horses and the challenges of camping and wilderness.That's not the recipe for a successful contrived fake film. And yet it turned out so.
Many people that new the truth and had not benefited from the project would have a motive to expose him early on, out of jealously if nothing else. Yet that didn't happen. This film has probably been examined as much if not more so that the JFK assassination and 55 years on it continues to fascinate us.
I like your take on this subject. Open-mindedness is underrated but absolutely necessary in any discussion.
P.S. I love your triple-shot
@@astoltzfus4 Thanks man!😃
That’s so funny. I always thought the “Bigfoot” in the video walked away wayyy too calmly.
Not if that bigfoot didn't give a shit!!
Those are the mannerisms of a human being, that is a person walking in the suit!
It's a man called Bob horonumiuss wearing a gorilla costume pat gave him 1000dollars to do it
@@KevinGonzales-zv9xb Right at 18:30 it's explained that Bob Heronimous was the guy paid $1000 to wear that ape costume and it had shoulder pads and stuff to alter his body. It goes on to say that that Bob ended up not getting paid!!
A seven foot, 400lb creature that can rip your arms off and beat you with the wet end don't need to hustle.
It walks like a human. Not a gotilla
Are you absolutely sure that it doesn't walk like a gotilla because they have a real different walk...
It walks exactly like Bob H with exactly the same posture.