Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film/Archive 1

Filming Speed section

What does the section of "Filming Speed" have to do with anything? It doesn't make much sense, wouldn't you just be able to watch the footage and determine its speed rather than the complicated method of figuring out how tall the camera man is? (though I still don't see what his height has to do with determining the film speed).

Apparently the camera shakes so much that it's not clear what speed it is. I've attempted to explain its importance, but I can't answer the latter point. The Singing Badger 19:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing I was wondering is, that... couldn't you just watch the movie and determine how many frames are in one second, thereby determining the speed of the film? ...What I mean is, just counting how many times the image changes per second (obviously on a frame-by-frame level) then... well, you'd have the filming speed right there. I don't know who thought about those walking steps thing but it seems a really complex method to determine a film speed.

No, the point is you don't know how long 'one second' is in the film. One second of 'real time' may not be the same as one second in the film, if it's filmed at 16 fps. You might have seen old silent footage from the early 1900s where everyone seems to be moving faster than normal; that's because they were filmed at 16fps but are being projected at 24fps. So in 'the world of the film' one second is shorter than a second in the 'real world'. Imagine you watch the Patterson-Gimlin film and count 16 frames, say. Was that one second of filming? Or is it only one second after 24 frames? In other words, the very question that is being asked is how long is one second in the film? Does that make sense? The Singing Badger 15:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes sense, and thats what I thought some confusion would arise over. But if you watch a film at the wrong speed its noticable. It's like listening to a record on the wrong speed.

Normally it would be, but in this one the camera is wildly moving around and shaking as the cameraman runs, so you can't tell. The Singing Badger 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also ... speed is determined by relationships and how we know things to move, because you don't know how TALL or even have an idea how big the object is its speed cannot be determined unless something else is moving. Because the horse moves, it can't be determined if the speed is correct.

Ray Wallace

Who is Ray Wallace? It is not explained here.

Rebuttals

Most of the people listed here as having "confessed" to hoaxing the Patterson-Gimlin have fallen out of favor. Some rebuttals should be added.

Several articles?

I suggest this page be divided up into seperate articles because of its size. A difficult task considering how well refrenced it is. --The_stuart 14:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Probable hoaxes?

I was just wondering why this page shows up under 'Probable Hoaxes', when the article itself gives no credible evidence at all of this probability. -Username forgotten

Film speed

Beckjord: you people know nothing of this topic and ought to withdraw. The film speed relates to the creature's speed,gait and to sharpness and lack thereof in some frames. The film, which I own a top copy of, is not blurred and has only some sections where there is a smearing when Patterson fell. The film was shot at 16 fps, which helped overexpose the fur of the creature and reveal many odd things in it. Embedded faces, for example. At 24 fps, the gait is akward. FOr more info, visit http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pgfilmframesinseries BeckjordBeckjord 08:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no meaningful content at the site Beckjord mentions above; it's just a placeholder now. DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Film length

How long is the film?

The film is only 59.5 seconds in length, less than 60 seconds MarcusTCicero 12:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No more shakey

Here is a .gif version that has been edited to compensate for the shakey camera, it's 4mb in size abd I think it's definate proof that it is a man in a suit. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

What are you talking about?!! A man couldn't possibly walk like that. He'd have to have his arms broken above his elbows and then welded back to get his arms to bend like that. This is clear evidence that Bigfoot is a transdimensional being. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, when that arm swings and starts to bend, it looks as if the guys arm ends at the suits elbow and it's just flailing around.

That is awesome!! Whoever did the work on this deserves a medal. MAN IN SUIT!! MAN IN SUIT!! 129.173.55.207 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is a man in a suit, then how did he make a stride of, between 51" to 61"? That part of the arguement if it is real or fake seems to lost in the debate. MarcusTCicero 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stride was mostly 41 in, but still too long for a normal man.

Nonsense. Bob Hieronimus, the man wore the gorilla suit in the film, duplicated the stride perfectly. Coincidence? I think not... ~~justtalk

I heard that the stride of the purported animal, in the film, differs from the tracks recovered. This suggests that either the video is faked to match mysterious tracks, or (less likely) tracks were faked in the location of the movie.

Also, close ups of frame 306 shows a female sex organ, so it is female, not male, also has a child on its breast. Dr Bernard Heuvelmans, founder of

Cryptozoology, agrees. See http://www.bigfoot.org for his drawing.

It had a child on its breast??? Yeah, right...it's sad that some rodeo conman has people fooled in the 21st century with this laughable, transparent hoax of a man walking around in a fur suit. Oh, brother...

Bottom of Feet

I like how you can see the soles of his shoes! LOL! --The_stuart 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Soles of bare feet. Not shoes. Go back to your comic books. - Brent

Yes, soles of his shoes. Go back to reading comic books, indeed.

This article needs a complete rewrite

The previous version began

Few doubt the film is authentic, but despite study by biologists, anthropologists, photographers and others, both amateur and professional, opinions remain divided as to the identity of the ape-like creature.

This is absurdly misleading. In fact, the mainstream view is clear: the film was a (rather transparent) hoax perpetrated by Patterson, Gimlin, and Hieronimus, as extensively documented in the book by Greg Long. The man who wore the monkey suit, Bob Hieronimus, actually confessed his role to Long and provided details of how the hoax film was made. The entire article is absurdly biased in favor of the crank view that a nonhuman primate native to the West coast of North America actually exists. Sheesh, no wonder people criticize the Wikipedia for factual inaccuracies! Read the book by Long, folks, and rewrite accordingly, please. ---CH 20:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia urgently needs to raise standards of accuracy and verifiabilty to prevent its reputation from consolidating into a joke - chain is only as strong as weakest link. Tags at the top of an article such as {{dispute}} mean little to those pushing crank/conspiracy POVs. However, if every unlikely/dubious claim in every paranormal/pseudoscientific type article had "" tags inserted after them - for all to see - some articles would be smothered in them. It wouldn't be long before some of the more seasoned Wiki editors accepted there is a serious threat to our reputation, and would help take action. (I'm not suggesting they are not concerned now, just busy elsewhere). Can't see a problem with this action, because no-one could reasonably argue against seeking accuracy. What do you think? Moriori 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, anyone tempted to respond by saying "simply be bold and remove the offending claims" is living in dreamland.

I agree. Some time ago I listed it under the "proven hoax" section at List of hoaxes, but that wasn't allowed to stand. It is under "probable hoaxes", though. Since they confessed to the hoax, and there was other evidence of it being a hoax, I considered it a proven hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Many people still refuse to believe that the film is a hoax (or, at least, they refuse to believe that it was hoaxed in the manner that Long describes). Check out some of the lengthy rebuttals at amazon.com (I know, it's not an encyclopedic source, but it might give you some food for thought). As you can see, most of the Bigfoot believers remain unconvinced; almost all of the praise for the book comes from people who had already thought the film was a hoax.Zagalejo 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See True-believer syndrome. Bubba73 (talk), 03:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that's a factor for some people. However, the issue is not whether Bigfoot is real or not, but whether Long's book provides convincing evidence that the Patterson film was hoaxed in the manner that he says it was hoaxed. Many of the reviews suggest that it doesn't, and I think that some of their objections (eg, Long's evidence is mostly anecdotal and sometimes self-contradictory) warrant some consideration. (I'll admit that I haven't read the book myself, but even some self-described skeptics have offered similar objections, which makes it difficult for me to dismiss all of the believers' critiques as blind fanboyism.) Furthermore, we should keep in mind that this isn't the first "exposé" of the Patterson film -- different people have been taking or assigning credit for the film for years (see [1]; [2]). But the general public tends to forget about all of that. (Frankly, I'll bet that another book or tv special will come out within the next ten years that credits the Patterson film to an entirely different person, and that the media will pounce all over that without remembering Long or any of his predecessors.)

Again, I'm not trying to argue that the film is genuine, or that Bigfoot, as a whole, exists. I'm just suggesting that you should look at Long's work more critically. The film may indeed have been hoaxed by someone, but Long's specific claims about how it was hoaxed should be taken with a grain of salt.

Just trying to start a friendly discussion here, Zagalejo 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a highly recommended article from Skeptical Inquirer: [3] Zagalejo 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the tags because I'm confident that I'm justified in doing so. Nothing has been proven yet. We should demand the same level of evidence from Long, Hieronimus, etc as we would from someone who said he saw a Bigfoot. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Zagalejo 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've since replaced the tags with an overall NPOV tag and an original research tag in the Hoax Allegations section. The NPOV tag is pretty self-explanatory: the article still needs a more neutral tone. As for the original research tag, I thought that the subsection on Hieronimus reads too much like a personal analysis of Greg Long's book. The section would be strengthened by citing published criticism of the book (which does exist -- Daniel Perez would be a good source to use).

I hope this satisfies everyone. Zagalejo 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about listing this as a proven hoax based on Long's book and Bob Hieronimus' confession. It's not a proven hoax until they can provide the suit that they claim was used in the film anymore than Bigfoot can currently be proven a reality. There is no physical evidence either way. --Starladustangel 15:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Further questions:

• Has any analysis been done on the movement of the breasts? Could it be faked with weighted padding?
• What are the body sizes of various people who claim to have used a suit, and do they match up with someone of that height/width? (the keeping sticks in the arms comment could allow for swinging the end of the arms like "sleeves")

Nevermind, several sites are arguing over "Bob Heironimus in a suit"

http://images.google.com/images?q=Bob+Heironimus&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

Here's a direct link to the relevant info from that page: [4]

BTW, be sure to sign your name to every post. Otherwise, people will just dismiss what you have to say. Zagalejo 16:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article could use some improvements...it's on my mental list to do so as soon as I complete a few other chores.--MONGO 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This film has had big impact on popular culture.The standard hoax conspirators would make a much more overt film.The poor quality of the film especially the shakiness actually made it more believable and mysterious at the same time.I would think it wouldn't be hard to find references to this film by Hollywood directors or cinematographers,etc..

There is a humorous reference to this film in the movie "Elf" in which Will Ferrel's character is caught on film walking through New York's Central Park. 17 Dec 2006

Comment moved from User_talk:Hillman

[personal attack removed] Watcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.198 (talk • contribs) (cache-ntc-ad04.proxy.aol.com)

Please review WP:CIV ---CH 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a NPA (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) warning on the user's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What About the Walk?

Many of this film's supporters argue that the creature doesn't walk like a human being. First off, every human has a different stride. Second, film, a two-dimensional medium, distorts our view. Great comedians like Charlie Chaplin have used this to create distinctive "funny walks". Personally, I don't know if Bigfoot exists. I have my doubts, but I can't prove that they don't exist. For all I know, one may walk out of the woods tomorrow. I do know that this film has been compellingly debunked. File it with the Cottingley Fairies, the Loch Ness Monster and every UFO photo ever taken. Like all other human inventions, the camera can be made to lie.

I think people need to stop posting their personal opinions as evidence.

"I do know that this film has been compellingly debunked."

No you don't! There is equal evidence supporting this film that is also debunking it. Just as many claim it as real and show their proof as there are people who show their proof that it's fake. I personally don't swing either way on the subject. I want to believe that it's genuine, and I think that it would be cool if it were real, but there is a lot of evidence that shows that it's fake. There is a lot of evidence, however, that proves that same evidence as fake. The Bob Heironimus (or however it's spelled) confession is nowhere near convincing, especially since many have confessed to being the one in the suit. The book by Long has many holes that have been pointed out. No one right now can say that they know that it's fake... or genuine. That's what element needs to be applied to the article.

As for the probable hoax debate, I think that's a load of crap. Again, no one knows right now if it's a fake other than the two who shot the film. Until they actually confess that it's fake, it's anyone's guess. Like I said, there's ample and equal evidence "proving" that the film is fake or genuine. Helltopay27 (August 17th, 2006)

Not neutral at all

No, this family of sasquatch-related articles is anything but neutral. Mind you, it is factual to state, "The majority of scientists doubt the existence of sasquatch," but to make only such statements and steadily disparage every contrary expression does, indeed, ring clarion of anything but neutrality. What's more disturbing is that the articles are not open to editing by the public. Perhaps if the articles were more neutral there wouldn't be any need to protect the articles against (presumably angry) editing. User:bdwilner20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read more reports more closely - and avoid the onslaught of tabloidesque "it's been debunked" primetime TV programs of the past ten years or so - you will come across most scientists (who fall within the realm of the research-related field: wildlife biologists, primatologists, etc) who study the film objectively as stating: the film is either genuinely a film of an unclassified bipedal primate, or requires more research. Most no longer outrightly denounce the film.

--Bentonia School 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite references instead of making wild claims. There are no credible scientists claiming anything other than that the film is a fake. As for the first post in this section...Give me a break! Claiming that scientific opinion is not neutral and demands "contrary expression" is the same lame argument creationists use to get the myth of creation taught alongside the fact of evolution. Mk1888 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Three men in a suit

At the last count, three men (not including myself) have now come forward/been identified as "the man" in the suit. Two of them must be wrong. sonofDavkal 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Only three? Geez. Mind you, that's three more than the number of Biggies that have actually been identified. Moriori 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed my opinion

After viewing the stabilized version it I have noticed indications of a suit. However, the discriptions of the suit by Bob Heironimus and Phillip Morris do not match the suit in the film. There are two very distinct joints or seams visible. The most obvious one is around the waist. The upper torso section can be seen rotating independant of the lower body section when the creature turns. Frame # 72 shows the "fur line" down the back misaligned where the two pieces overlap. Midway down the thigh another joint is visible running diagonally. It has the appearance of a diaper covering the buttocks and does not move with the leg. You can see this diaper-like covering on the famous frame # 352. Bob H. said that the lower section was one piece , not three. He also said that the head was a football helmet covered with a mask. The creatures head is more narrow than a standard football helmet when viewed face on.67.62.23.202 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)GCottrell

Yeah, I have noticed that myself. There is a definite appearance of a seam at the waistline. For what it's worth, it is a really good fake and I still question Morris's statement that he made the suit used in the film.--MONGO 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"The creatures head is more narrow than a standard football helmet" - Bob Heironimus said the football helmet he wore was NOT a standard one, it was more like the ones they wore back in the 30's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info- I didn't know that. Any thoughts on the various joints/ overlapping parts? Bob's original description of a "t-shirt" style made from a horse could have had those overlaps but he later switched to the Morris zipper suit version. Not very good recall if he was there. 67.62.23.202 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Being forty years ago I am surprised he can remember anything at all about the costume, LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob never said the suit was made from horsehide. This is just another myth from the Bigfooters that have never read Greg Long's book. BOB HEIRONIMUS never said that the suit was made of a dead horse (gray or red). He SAID that Roger had claimed once to his brother Howard Heironimus (seen in the cowboy movie with Patterson and Indian Gimlin) that he had done it all himself with horsehide. That was Roger Patterson who said that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change to first paragraph

In the first paragraph of the Patterson-Gimlin film entry, the last sentence reads: However the film has been widely critiqued and debunked by various experts since it was released. To me, the wording in that sentence seems to imply that the film has actually been successfully “debunked by experts,” when in fact the film’s authenticity remains completely inconclusive to date. To remedy this, I would like to suggest that the sentence be reworded as follows: However, since the film’s release, it has been widely critiqued and subjected to many attempts at debunking by various experts. Your thoughts on this proposed revision would be appreciated. Labyrinth13 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Subjected to many attempts at debunking" . ???? Huh! Make sure you insert "subjected to many attempts to authenticate it" as well. The film has been debunked, just as it has been declared genuine as well. Moriori 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I think that your suggestion is a good one. I have rewritten the sentence to include the line, "subjected to many attempts to both debunk and authenticate." The line now has a much more NPOV, in my opinion. Your thoughts? Labyrinth13 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Overlay Map

Can some one insert an overlay map or a google earth image as to the approximate or even the precise location of where the October 1967 Bigfoot sighting took place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The real hoax.

It should be stated that the only absolutely known hoax surrounding the film is that the film has been proven to be hoaxed. Concerning the issue of Bob Heironimus, it should be stated that Mr Heironimus is quoted as saying that the suit apparently weighed 20 to 25 pounds, needed help standing up and sitting down while wearing it, and it stunk, as it was made out of dead horse carcus. If this is so, Mr Heironimus moves fairly smoothly and with great gait for someone who needed help simply getting around while not walking. It should also be noted that the film has never be debunked, despite many well-funded attempts. The supposed suit from the Patterson-Gimlin has never been produced, not has a sufficient 'replica'. I feel this article leans too strongly toward the hoax side without actually providing more info from the authentic side - ie, the serious scientific research of many renowned scientists, outdoorsmen, naturalists, etc, not to mention the old legends of the First Nations and Native American peoples. The Gigantopithecus theory should be detailed. This can be quite a long, informative article, and deserves to be. I will take the time to edit points and provide citations. --Bentonia School 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"The supposed suit from the Patterson-Gimlin has never been produced" - uh, the supposed cut-outs from the Cottingley fairy photos have never been produced either. Nor has the supposed toy sub from the famous "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster. So what? You really expect to find a stinky fur suit made 40 years ago to pop up now?????

Ray Wallace

The section on Ray Wallace is inconsistent with other sources. Wallace apparently never said anything of the sort mentioned in the article to Patterson. It should read some sources suggest or something similar. I have a citation that suggests strong evidence that Wallace was not involved in anything of the sort. I will edit that section. --Bentonia School 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious Questions for PGF Supporters

1. Bigfoot is supposed to be a manlike ape (correct me if I'm wrong) and yet it has both a sagittal crest (male) and pendulous hairy breasts (no female great ape has hairy breasts) and a hairy buttocks (no great ape has a hairy buttocks). Why is this?
2. Re: North American Science Institute: Supporters say that the arms are too long (intermembral index of 80 to 90 in contrast to human average of 72) and that the hands flex. Why can’t prosthetics reproduce this? Why do the proportions seem utterly normal in the stabilized version of the film?
3. Re: North American Science Institute: Why couldn’t the absence of a bobbing head be explained by a suit which restricts head movement?
4. Re: Krantz, Hunter, and Dahinden: Why can’t the musculature (moving knees, distinct buttocks) be due to having a tight suit? Why can’t the foot flexion be due to a moccasin type shoe?
5. When Hollywood technicians said it would be extremely tough to reproduce the creature’s locomotion they had not seen a stabilized version of the film. The film is absurdly shaky. Moreover, the creature’s locomotion is very ordinary in the stabilized version. How come Bob Heironimus was able to perfectly reproduce the locomotion of the creature (see the video capture here)? How come Bob Heironimus has a remarkably similar leg length to body length ratio which is supposedly nearly impossible in humans?
6. Why couldn’t a zipper be covered up by fur?
7. Re: Krantz and North American Science Institute: Why can’t the bulky and wide shoulders (Krantz claims 35.1% of creature’s height) have been the product of shoulder pads? Perhaps this is also why the shoulder can be above the jaw.

Now anyone in their right mind must agree that the BBC’s 1998 re-creation of the Patterson-Gimlin film was supremely lame. But it seems that all the supposed authenticating detais are explicable in a man-in-a-suit paradigm. Huysman 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's certainly conceivable that someone could've pulled off a stunt like this. However, nothing has been proven yet -- even Skeptical Inquirer had some problems with the Heironimus story -- so the Wikipedia article shouldn't take a concrete position on the film. Zagalejo 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it very convincing that Heironimus just happened to have lived down the street from Roger Patterson, and was also friends with Bob Gimlin as well. He walks exactly like the supposed bigfoot in the film too.

North American Science Institute

I removed this paragraph for the simple reason that no one has verified the validity of this supposed "institute." All the claims and so called analysis were pulled directly from the web site with no confirmation from other reliable sources. For all we know this so-called institution was created on some web site along with the supposed computer analysis, all being monitored by some 14 year old kid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.219.130.35 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Summa Contra PGF by WRH

I want people to avoid wasting time and energy debating whether the Patterson Film shows a Bigfoot. It is a brilliant hoax and it is time to move on, so I have written the following: Art. 1: Whether the Patterson Film is a hoax?

• Obj. 1: It would seem that the Patterson-Gimlin film shows a genuine Bigfoot and is not a hoax. For an ape suit would have a zipper, but it is evident that there is no zipper to be found on the creature.
• Obj. 2: Patterson maintained until his death from cancer in 1972 that the film was not a hoax, which proves that he was sincere and therefore that the film really shows a Bigfoot.
• Obj. 3: A hoax can be ruled out because a hoax would put the person in the suit in immediate mortal danger from hunters.
• Obj. 4: The North American Science Institute says that the creature’s head does not bob as it walks, which is not true of humans. Therefore, the film does not show a human and must instead show a Bigfoot.
• Obj. 5: The North American Science Institute points out that the creature’s jaw is below the shoulder line, which means that the creature is not human.
• Obj. 6: In 1969 John Green showed the film to Disney executive Ken Peterson, who then said that “their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film” [Grover Krantz, Big Footprints: A Scientific Study Into the Reality of Sasquatch 93]. But since Disney special effects technicians at the time could not duplicate the film, Patterson could not possibly have created a hoax.
• Obj. 7: No one has been able to reproduce the locomotion of the creature, indicating that it cannot possibly be a human in a suit.
• Obj. 8: Krantz estimated that the creature has a shoulder width that is 35.1% of its standing height, which far exceeds the ratio of a human.
• Obj. 9: Dr. Jeff Meldrum points out that the creature in the film has “an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes. In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing.”
• Obj. 10: The creature has distinct buttocks and groups of muscles can be seen moving. Even the feet flex when the creature lifts a leg.
• On the contrary, John Napier says [Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality 89], “There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis.”
• I answer that, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin color film purporting to show a female Sasquatch walking through Bluff Creek is a clever hoax. Roger Patterson was a shady character. Patterson had known about the report that in 1955, William Roe saw a female Bigfoot in eastern British Columbia. The build of the figure in the film and its actions mirror Roe’s account: “… as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female… Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip…its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms and longer reaching almost to its knees…[T]he nose was broad and flat…the hair that covered it [the face], leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose, and ears…its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man’s I have ever seen…It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face… [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come…again turning its head to look in my direction.” Patterson illustrated this scene and it matched the creature’s stance, build, and hairy breasts [Roger Patterson, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?]. Patterson and Gimlin should have followed the alleged Bigfoot, which was not fleeing and which could have been incapacitated with their guns. Patterson needed to shoot the film because there was an arrest warrant against him for not paying the bill for the camera rental. Patterson “never went back to Bluff Creek, to any search except Thailand” [Barbara Wasson] but would have if there really was a Bigfoot. The so-called Bigfoot is an anatomical impossibility. The Bigfoot shown is supposed to be a human-like female ape, but it has a cone-shaped head (male) and sagittal crest (male) in addition to pendulous hairy breasts (no female great ape has hairy breasts) and a hairy buttocks (no great ape has a hairy buttocks). However, the conclusive proof that the film is a hoax can be seen in the original version. Before the film was edited, the figure went from right to left, then there were several blank frames, then the figure walked from left to right. This proves that the film was shot in two takes and that the so-called Bigfoot is actually a human actor in a costume.
• Reply 1: Either there was a zipper or there was not. If there was a zipper, it could have been concealed by the fur. If there was no zipper, the costume had a snap instead of a zipper for more natural movement and easier concealment due to the absence of seams and bunching, and increased safety in case the actor needed to quickly exit the suit on that balmy day.
• Reply 2: Patterson was a shady character and would have wanted to protect his financial assets for posterity.
• Reply 3: Actually, Patterson and Gimlin had made an agreement not to shoot a Bigfoot if they saw one, and there were no hunters who put the actor in danger that day, and so the actor was in no danger of being shot.
• Reply 4: A suit which restricts head movement causes the head not to bob.
• Reply 5: The jaw can be made to come below the shoulder line via bulky shoulder pads.
• Reply 6: Disney technicians did not see a stabilized version of the film, and it is possible they would have said otherwise had they seen the stabilized version of the film created by M.K. Davis, in which case they would have a clear view of the costume and gait.
• Reply 7: Bob Heironimus reproduced the creature’s locomotion to a tee. There are several glaring problems with Heironimus’s confession but regardless of whether he is lying about being the actor in the suit, he showed conclusively that the locomotion is not unhuman.
• Reply 8: Bulky shoulder pads can produce wide shoulders, as can the film technique of forced perspective.
• Reply 9: Actually, the arms, as measured from shoulder to wrist, match human arms, which is why Bob Heironimus has the same proportions as the creature as is clear from a video capture of his Bigfoot acting. The reason the arms seem too long to be human in the eyes of many supporters of the film’s authenticity is that the distance from wrist to fingertip is long, but this can indeed be reproduced with prosthetics.
• Reply 10: The waist and abdomen can be enlarged with a water bag. Foam rubber and parachute cord at the ankles, knees, and hips can mimic muscle flexion and plaster extensions/prosthetics can indeed be used for flexing hands. Huysman 19:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, Saint Thomas Aquinas has spoken. --65.6.65.184 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucky Roger

Roger Patterson was an extraordinarily lucky individual. - Lucky Roger lived in the Yakima region at the time that Bigfoot showed up and began appearing and leaving tracks. He even lived on the same road where Bigfoot tracks were found! And, he died about the same time that Bigfoot apparently moved on. Sadly, there were no reported sightings, tracks or other evidence before or after Lucky Roger lived in the area. The Yakama Indians (Yes, that’s how they spell it) did have legends, but there have been no reported sightings in contemporary times. - Bigfoot was sighted in Yakima the night before Patterson was scheduled to do a book signing in town at the Bon Marche. What a boon for him! - Lucky Roger would put up promotional posters about Bigfoot and within two weeks there would be local sightings and purported Bigfoot activity. Again, what a wondrous coincidence! - Roger Patterson, amateur Bigfoot hunter, set out to film a Bigfoot. He rents/steals a camera, travels hundreds of miles to an area of reported prints, and is able to do what no one before or since has done - capture Bigfoot on film! And it was on his first try to film a Bigfoot! Wow, is that amazing or what? - Lucky Roger was able to somehow get the film developed by Kodak when no one else could get them to open on weekends, not even the heads of major studios. Lucky Roger was able to get the film turned around and show it to his partners in Yakima within 48 hours! That’s another feat than no one else could have done. Lucky Roger must have really lived right for all these astonishing coincidences to come together for him. It’s too bad that he got so confused toward the end and accidentally sold more than 100% of the rights to different people and made deals which screwed people like Bob Gimlin even though he already had a deal with him. Bob Gimlin was a very unlucky man because he had to sue Patty Patterson to get his share of the profits. And now he’s being unfairly attacked by that mean, money-grubbing Greg Long who is nothing more than an opportunistic character assassin, out to make a quick buck off of poor, unlucky Bob and formerly lucky, now dead Roger. Of course, there are a lot of other unlucky people in the Yakima area. Just about anybody who ever did business with Roger Patterson, or who loaned him money. But that’s totally irrelevant. Lucky Roger’s character and reputation should not influence how people view his story. Just because Lucky Roger had the motive, opportunity and means to perpetrate a hoax, that in no way casts any doubt on the authenticity of the film. ;) Lucky Roger also never returned to Bluff Creek!!!! Now why would he not return unless there never was a bigfoot there to begin with? LOL

The footprint casts are further evidence of a hoax

Numerous studies, some dating back as far as the late 70's, have proven that the foot shown in the film could not match the footprints that were said to have been recovered at the site. In frame 61, the bottom of the Bigfoot's right foot is easily seen. Not only is the arch on the wrong side, indicating that Bigfoot has two left feet, but as Kal Korff first pointed out, the shape of the feet do not match the casts from the tracks that were later recovered at the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous post incorrect

Actually, frame 61 clearly shows that all five toes from big to lttle are in the correct order for a right foot. The image is not showing a "backward arch" but a feature that is common among the great apes. Kal Korff is apparently unfamiliar with what is known as mid foot flexibility in primates- basically, gorrillas and chimps are able to bend the foot almost backward. It's appearance in the film lends great credibility that it is showing a primate. It is unfortunate that so much rumor is spread by the uninformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous post incorrect about previous post being incorrect

Frame 61 does indeed show the arch on the wrong side. An analysis done by Kal K. Korff confirms this. Not only is the arch on the wrong side, indicating that Bigfoot has two left feet, but as Korff pointed out in the Fox special, the shape of the feet do not match the casts from the tracks that were later recovered at the site. When asked about the length of the latex feet that he supplied to Patterson along with the rest of the gorilla suit, Morris replied, "Oh, I'd say fourteen inches." Not surprisingly, the Bigfoot tracks Patterson later submitted as his evidence measured fourteen inches. Morris adds: "The heel [of the creature] is too square-looking. It's a dead giveaway. Those are definitely my feet that I sold Patterson," Also, neither humans nor chimpanzees have hairy breasts. This was another mistake by Roger Patterson, who was infactuated with the Roe account of a female bigfoot. It is indeed unfortunate that so much rumor is spread by the uninformed. ~~justtalk

Footprint casts evidence

I think the article needs to say more about corroborating evidence in the form of footprint casts- and include photos of the series of casts made at the site by Bob Titmus. I'm still on the fence about the film BUT, I have to say that the most convincing part is not the image at all- it's the casts of the footprints. Titmus made casts of ten prints nine days after the filming. I've seen photos of these and each one is a different shape. The different position of the toes shows great animation of the foot. This could be the result of:(A) flexible fake feet (B) a number of carved fakes or (C) real feet. But Patterson only cast two of the tracks (having brought only enough plaster for one left and one right) But why would he do that? If you had gone to the trouble of creating a series of prints that were all different to suggest animation, would you only cast two of them and leave for home?. Furthermore, when Titmus got to the site nine days later, he found the tracks covered with large slabs of bark. Bob Gimlin explained that it had started to rain that night , so he rode back up there (about two miles)and covered them with the only thing he could find- bark from some old trees. But why would he have done that? If the footprints were fake, wouldn't you just let them rain out so they couldn't be examined by others? ("cover your tracks"?) Why would they create a long series of fake tracks showing animation, only cast one left and one right, and cover the rest with bark to protect them from rain? I'd like to see pictures of these casts included in the article. 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)67.62.23.202 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote from Roger Patterson's brother-in-law Bruce Mondor concerning the alleged "Bigfoot footprints" : "Roger made the footprints, and he explained the whole damn thing to me. He showed me the big foot; it didn't have an arch in it. It had toes like it should have.... And I asked him ... 'What do you do, you pick this up and slam it down?' It had to weigh twenty-five or thirty pounds. He said, 'Yeah, that's what I do.' I said, 'Then what do you do there [in the impression on the ground]?' He said, 'I pour plaster of Paris in there.'" - source: interview by Greg Long, "The Making of Bigfoot"

Yes, I have read that quote. But, as I said, the 10 casts that Bob Titmus made have toes that are together in some and spread apart in others. I'm not saying that there is no chance they are fake- but they definately were'nt done by slamming a big carved footprint in the ground as stated in the quote above. Have you seen photos of the cast series? They can be seen on page 227 of the following link: http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do know that the foot in the Patterson film does not match the prints that were later have been said to have been collected at the site. Roger probably used many different casts to make his bigfoot prints, including the ones in his film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way does the foot in the film "not match the prints"? The film shows a big, flat foot with five little toes- looks pretty much the same to me. Maybe Roger faked his film, maybe he didn't, but don't just "say stuff".

I am not just saying "stuff." The shape and size of the foot does not match the footprints that were collected at the site. This is old news: this was revealed back in the 70's. I have no doubt that the film is fake: Roger Patterson was a well known conman and liar, and the man who wore the suit just happened to have lived down the street from him and Gimlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The raised foot can be seen on page 228 of the link I already sent. It is identical in shape (although there is no way to judge size) to both Roger's casts and some of Titus'. Judge for yourself.67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it was already pointed out that the raised foot in the film does not match the supposed footprints. So either the prints are fake or the film is. Or most likely, BOTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK- so how are they different? Different shape? Size? color? Who "pointed it out"? When "in the 70's"?

Sorry, but I won't do your homework for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Would anyone else like to comment on the links I posted with photos of the raised foot and series of casts that were made by Bob Titmus? 67.62.23.202 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as I thought too....another bigfoot believer that won't do his own research. By the way, Kal Korff also did an extensive analysis on the footprints...and guess what? Again, as consistent with the earlier studies, the foot in the Patterson film does not match the prints that were said to have been recovered at the site. Anyone else like to comment on Roger Patterson's confession on how he faked bigfoot prints?

Wikipedia articles are written using sources that are referenced (like mine) Feel free to come back if you find one.Just-unsigned (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did...Kal Korff. Feel free to look him up. Also, Mark Chorvinsky's findings revealed the same thing. As far as your claims go, is there any evidence that Titmus made these casts at the site? According to Rene Dahinden, TITUMS TOOK NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUPPOSED 10 IMPRESSIONS. How convenient for him, eh? And Rene Dahinden was a huge supporter of the film. Check it out. For further details, check out Greg Long's expose of the Patterson film, "The Making of Bigfoot."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question a third time- How are the casts that Patterson and Titmus made different from the image of the raised foot in the film? The link I posted shows both. If you have something of value to say then say it. Not just "they're fake because Kal Korff said so" blah blah blah...

And I will answer again for the third time: the foot is not the same shape as the footprints that were said to have been taken from the site. You wanted sources, and I gave them to you. Now you are trying to backpedal. In frame 61, the bottom of the Bigfoot's right foot shows the arch on the wrong side, for starters. If you have something of value to say then say it. Not just "they're real because Titmus said so" blah blah blah... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good! Now we're getting somewhere! Do you have a link showing frame 61? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Look on page 380 of "The Making of Bigfoot" by Greg Long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Morris confuse Patterson with Marx?

Many readers of Greg Long's book, "The making of bigfoot" have commented on the contradictions between Bob Heironimus and Phillip Morris.Heironimus described a suit made from a skinned horse. A suit that stunk, with a seperate torso and legs ( many people that view the film claim to see a joint around the waist). The lower part was sinched with a draw string according to Heironimus. The Morris suits were all one piece. Each had a zipper in the back. They were not made from skinned horses. Greg Long could only speculate that Patterson must have "modified the suit" to explain the contradiction. Morris also has no written record of such a sale. While most agree that the Patterson footage looks nothing like the Morris suit, there was, however, another film made near that time that did look very similar- "The Legend of Bigfoot" by Ivan Marx. The similarity between the Morris suit and the "bigfoot" in the Marx film is striking. In fact many people have confused Marx with Patterson. Both men had produced films claiming to show bigfoot about the same time. Morris could have easily sold a suit to Marx and then thought the customer had been Patterson many years later. A simple mistake, especially when he had no written document to refresh his memory. The similarity between the suits that Morris made and the subject in the Marx film are striking. But how did Greg Long miss that fact? In other areas he did excellant research. But in the end, his book was not about bigfoot films in general. It was about Roger Patterson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the people who say that Morris's suit looks nothing like the suit in the Patterson film are simply repeating others who have not seen Morris's suit either. Check out the Fortean Times, Jan 2005 edition in which they recreate the suit using one of Morris's old gorilla costumes. Bob Heironimus even recreated the role by wearing the suit himself. The creature looks EXACTLY like the one in the Patterson film. Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Morris' suits and the Fortean article. Their attempt to duplicate a still frame from the Patterson film was laughable. However, I have to admit it did look like a perfect match to the subject seen in Ivan Marx film "Legend of Bigfoot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The still reproduced looked exactly like the creature in the Patterson film. And keep in mind that this was using different film (not grainy) and not shot from such a far distance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

People need to look up what is called "forced perspective" before making silly claims that the man who wore the costume in the film does not match Bob H's size.

Please stop deleting my posts (thats twice now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that thinks a gorrilla suit was made using forced perspective doesn't know what forced perspective is. It is a technique used in structures viewed from a specific location. Why in the world would anyone do that instead of get a bigger guy in a bigger suit? Besides, at the end of the film the subject was viewed directly from behind and the shape was symetrical. Forced persective suit?Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Baxter, an expert on hoaxes in general and trick photography in particular, claims that the creature's apparent size is due to a photographic trick called forced perspective. He notes that at no point in the Patterson-Gimlin film is any recognizable human form in the frame for size reference. He also asserts that the apparent "muscle movement" in the film was probably the result of a tight-fitting costume that enclosed the feet.

Baxter comments on Patterson's incredible good luck. "Roger Patterson set out to make a Bigfoot documentary," he says. "He immediately stumbled upon a Bigfoot. Not only that, he stumbled upon a Bigfoot that was out in the open in bright, clear sunshine, perfect weather for filming. He didn't just beat the odds. He gave the odds a royal whipping."

Do you even know what forced perpective is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask the same question: do you even know what forced perspective is? And what are your credentials? How do they compare to Robert Baxter's? Yeah, I thought so....

I'm an exhibit builder for the Smithsonian. My suggestion is that, in addition to Greg Longs book, you read one more book about bigfoot. That way you'll have twice as much information on the subject as you do now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I work for the CIA. This film has been thoroughly debunked. The only people who still take it seriously are the bigfoot nerds who can't accept that their "holy grail" is a fraud. Perhaps you should read books that have some added value. I suggest books that cover topics on science, history, or biology...instead of books on mythical creatures and fairy tales.

I'm sorry but you won't be able to post here any more. Wikipedia rules state that you must be at least eighteen years of age to join the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) In which you don't qualify...only children believe in fairy tales and mythical creatures like bigfoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to insult someone at least say something original. Repeating everything I say is not very impressive. In addition, this page is for discussion about ways to improve the article. If you have no interest in improving the article then don't post here.

I agree. You are the one that started with the insults. Take your own advice, please. If you have no interest in improving the article then don't post here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we include photograghs of all footprint casts made at the site. What is your suggestion?

Since we both agree that the film is a hoax, what would be the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have no suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying you that you don't agree with my assessment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) My personal opinion is not the issue. The issue is, do you have anything to contribute to this article or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have...in fact, I have made many changes to the text. A better question is, do YOU have anything to contribute to this article or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes- that no one that repeats everything I say be allowed to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion. Please restrict your comments to improvising the article. This is listed in the Wikipedia's standards.

Does anyone have an opinion about putting a photo of (or link to photos) of the casts made by others at the film site?Just-unsigned (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How does anyone feel about a link to the costume that Bob Heironimus wore in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That would a great addition to the article! Of course, it would have to be proven to be genuine with additional details on where it was found, who found it, why it took 40 years to find it, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the original costume....it has been over 40 years, I seriously doubt it still exists. But a link to the costume used in the film as sold by Phillip Morris might be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A reciept from Morris for the sale would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Morris kept the receipt after all of these years. I don't think anyone would have. Does anyone else care to see the costume that Bob Heironimus wore in the Patterson film? ~~justtalk

:Does anyone else care to see the costume that Bob Heironimus wore in the Patterson film? I can post a picture or link. ~~justtalk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)