Patterson Film Stabilized

originally posted by: shasta9600

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Morris also ties in with Bob Heironimus's story. Morris was supposedly contacted by Patterson through his ad that he ran on making Gorilla costumes for magicians and he shows the ad.

Part 1

Here's a piece from MK Davis, who does some very solid analysis. Are you really thinking this was a guy wearing football shoulder pads under a suit? It looks nothing like that at all....www.youtube.com...

MK Davis and ThinkerThinker are both very questionable researchers. Watch their videos. They see shapes and extra bigfoots in the shadows, etc. They are very bad researchers, if you can call them researchers at all.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: shasta9600

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Morris also ties in with Bob Heironimus's story. Morris was supposedly contacted by Patterson through his ad that he ran on making Gorilla costumes for magicians and he shows the ad.

Part 1

Here's a piece from MK Davis, who does some very solid analysis. Are you really thinking this was a guy wearing football shoulder pads under a suit? It looks nothing like that at all....www.youtube.com...

MK Davis and ThinkerThinker are both very questionable researchers. Watch their videos. They see shapes and extra bigfoots in the shadows, etc. They are very bad researchers, if you can call them researchers at all.

on to the question...do you really think the Patterson film, looks like Bob Heronimus, with football shoulder pads on, under a gorilla suit? Is that your explanation for this?

Short answer, yes.

I'm stating my opinion that the Patterson film looks like a person in a suit.

Personally I've been interested in special effects since my teens and I'm in my 50's now and have many friends in the effects industry. I read Cinefex magazine as we'll as American Cinematographer. I've been doing visual design for over 30 years and I've done TV storyboarding and TV commercial art direction as long too. I don't see anything extraordinary in the Patterson film. The suit looks lumpy and ill-fitting and I don't see the tell tale musculature that should be there.

That said, I've not looked into it as closely as Bill Munns has, so I'm saying this based upon my own visual experiences with costumes and effects, both on big budget and small budget commercials. My gut feeling in watching the film is that it is so obviously a suit. Watch "Gorillas in the Mist" movie to see a very believable gorilla portrayal with a costume and actors. The Patterson film seems way less believable, especially since Bob's walk is dead on to the bigfoot film.

Again, that's just my half-informed opinion. Thinkerthunker and M K Davis are just purely guessing. Watch their videos. That are so far from using any facts it's funny.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It's not hard to see...a younger Bob H...in the right circumstances ie. a distant, shaky, blurry low res film...this wouldn't be far off the money.

The length of the forearms and thighs are wrong ,also the shape of the head.

We can't see the movement to compare either.I'll see if I can find a video of Bob moving in the suit to compare.It;s really strange that a video can't be found of Bob inthe suit walking,Only a video of stills.

Bob Heironimus:is he telling the truth?Bob has contradicted himself many times here is a few of them.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

The length of the forearms and thighs are wrong ,also the shape of the head.

In your opinion of course. Seen it all debunked many times but, if you like. For every pic showing this, there are pics showing a perfect congruence. To get an accurate portrayal this way we would need to view it from the same angle, same distance, focal length, type of camera lens etc. (to rule out optical effects).

It is obviously not "the" suit anyway and I doubt it was ever supposed to be an exact replica, as we don't know exactly in which way it was altered by Patterson. Nor is Bob H the same build he was then. It's certainly close enough to lend support to the Morris claim though. Especially when you consider what is necessary to lend support to Patterson (an actual bigfoot that looks like Patty).

Bob Heironimus:is he telling the truth?Bob has contradicted himself many times here is a few of them.

Would you care to point them out (perhaps with sources to original)? While I can see one, I can also see some an awful lot of misrepresentation in amongst that lot. Perhaps we could also go into the contradictions of Patterson and Gimlin themselves, which are quite numerous.

Though firstly, could you substantiate the below claim from this (very poorly done) article? The author seems to make no attempt.

the creature in the film has been measured as standing at least 7'3" tall.

Here's a link that goes over exactly why the Patterson Film has never been proven to be a hoax. It has counter points to several of the "theories", including Bob H wearing a suit. www.bfro.net...

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Short answer, yes.

I'm stating my opinion that the Patterson film looks like a person in a suit.

Personally I've been interested in special effects since my teens and I'm in my 50's now and have many friends in the effects industry. I read Cinefex magazine as we'll as American Cinematographer. I've been doing visual design for over 30 years and I've done TV storyboarding and TV commercial art direction as long too. I don't see anything extraordinary in the Patterson film.

The suit looks lumpy and ill-fitting and I don't see the tell tale musculature that should be there.

You really don't see the musculature there? It's very clearly there, on every part of the body. Back, shoulders, thighs, calves, arms

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is obviously not "the" suit anyway and I doubt it was ever supposed to be an exact replica, as we don't know exactly in which way it was altered by Patterson. Nor is Bob H the same build he was then. It's certainly close enough to lend support to the Morris claim though. Especially when you consider what is necessary to lend support to Patterson (an actual bigfoot that looks like Patty).

Opinions vary,I guess.Bob H. is infamous for screwing up details of the alleged suit story.First it was made of horse hide that Rodger made,then it went to a Morris made Suit.He could not even get that detail right.

Here is ANOTHER link to the lies of Bob H. and why the Morris suit is wrong.

originally posted by: shasta9600

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Short answer, yes.

I'm stating my opinion that the Patterson film looks like a person in a suit.

Personally I've been interested in special effects since my teens and I'm in my 50's now and have many friends in the effects industry. I read Cinefex magazine as we'll as American Cinematographer. I've been doing visual design for over 30 years and I've done TV storyboarding and TV commercial art direction as long too. I don't see anything extraordinary in the Patterson film.

The suit looks lumpy and ill-fitting and I don't see the tell tale musculature that should be there.

You really don't see the musculature there? It's very clearly there, on every part of the body. Back, shoulders, thighs, calves, arms

No the musculature is not clear for you or me. The resolution is too poor. You are projecting. Even Bill Munns in his presentations says that the changes in light on the fur could be due to the hand brushing against the fur on the right thigh or that fur changes highlights as thing moves.

originally posted by: shasta9600
Here's a link that goes over exactly why the Patterson Film has never been proven to be a hoax. It has counter points to several of the "theories", including Bob H wearing a suit. www.bfro.net...

Bfro.net is hardly an unbiased source.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is obviously not "the" suit anyway and I doubt it was ever supposed to be an exact replica, as we don't know exactly in which way it was altered by Patterson. Nor is Bob H the same build he was then. It's certainly close enough to lend support to the Morris claim though. Especially when you consider what is necessary to lend support to Patterson (an actual bigfoot that looks like Patty).

Opinions vary,I guess.Bob H. is infamous for screwing up details of the alleged suit story.First it was made of horse hide that Rodger made,then it went to a Morris made Suit.He could not even get that detail right.

Here is ANOTHER link to the lies of Bob H. and why the Morris suit is wrong.

Each costume Morris made was hand tailored, so of course the replica costume would vary from the Patterson one. The rubber face part is the only part that was cast from the same molds and it looks very similar to the Patterson film face.

There are legitimate primate scientists out there. There should be a research study independent of the Bigfoot community. Do you have any other sources like that?

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
the parks department especially have a tight veil of secrecy in regards to bigfoot because of the many disappearances that have happened in our national parks. they can't obviously come forward and say that there is this highly intelligent creature roaming our national parks that has abducted men, women and children of various ages

I have a friend who works for the Forest Service. He has that job because he's idealistic and really into it. He would be the last guy on earth to go along with a nefarious conspiracy like this.

When you're talking about "they" in alleged conspiracies like this you're talking about a huge number of Regular Joes who would never go along with something like that.

a reply to: crazyeddie68
This particular bigfoot vid has been debated to death. I really dont think there is anything which has not been said before on it, and thats is just from me running into random things about it. Though if somebody wanted to fake it they could, its not like its impossible. However bob whats his name, well the guy just looks like a fat guy in a suit and far from whatever was in that video even if it was faked, the guy does far from a sealed deal impression of it.

And that padded look, I think its from this 2008 site were they were disusing it. Link I mean you can pad your shoulders and frame, then put on a suit. Also you would have to make the arms longer, but I dont know. They say the original film is in a better condition, but cant tell much from most of the others which are online. But the thing does look and move pretty real like, so if its a fake i think they did more then stuff and pad the inside, in some instance you can even kind of make out what looks like muscle flex through all that hair. So who knows.

Besides what is there to say which has not been said before on bigfoot thousands of times before. On this site alone you will find plenty of older links with plenty of info about even this particular vid. So really the only way you would find anything more is to go out and track it down, it would be kind of a bother and way to much time to go out and see. I figure it would take at least a month to track anything down in them forests of western Washington, and that is if you come back at all, you can even die of the flu trying to track things in that area, and that would only be a small area. Its a whole hell of a lot of terrain to cover. In fact you could spend you whole life out there and not encounter some things or know only but a fraction of the area.

But ya, unless somebody or people actually go out and seriously look for this elusive bigfoot thing, its all been said before.
Here is one of the better threads on this vid, or at least one of the more visual threads on bigfoot, people like picture you know.
Older thread on bigfoot

a reply to: thepixelpusher
Ya the guy ie ThinkerThinker well lets say the guy seems to be impressed by some things which are not that hard to do or pull off.

Like in this vid were he makes a big deal about this guy jumping over a waist high boulder or whatever it was. Lets just say the things he is impressed by are not as impossible to do as he makes it out to be. I dont know but I would say in this particular case that be a guy in a suit, it even looks in proportions to a big orangutang then bigfoot, that and it was filmed by a film student who on his site has a whole film shoot about it.


But the guys site is always pretty interesting, he does find all kinds of videos which are out there.

originally posted by: shasta9600
Here's a link that goes over exactly why the Patterson Film has never been proven to be a hoax. It has counter points to several of the "theories", including Bob H wearing a suit. www.bfro.net...

There are no end of bigfoot videos that haven't been proven a hoax. Yet that's what they are (same as this one). So it would be more accurate to say it has never been proven a hoax to believers. It's unlikely it ever will be, to them.

It was generally considered a hoax to scientists from the word go. Functionally/morphologically it is extremely unlikely (surely it has a transgender issue?). Superficially (there is not enough quality to have a detailed analysis) it simply looks like a man in a suit. To the more successful effects artists such as Chris Walas, it is an obvious fake.

This is the greatest red herring in bigfootery. Because no one can come up with the slightest biological evidence for bigfoot, they keep promoting an artifact ridden old film by a sheister. It is cryptozoology's "Shroud of Turin" that keeps the faithful, just that, faithful.

It doesn't become genuine by default (as believers think). It needs substantiating with something to indicate this type of bigfoot exist, to be considered genuine.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

Opinions vary,I guess.Bob H. is infamous for screwing up details of the alleged suit story.First it was made of horse hide that Rodger made,then it went to a Morris made Suit.He could not even get that detail right.

Here is ANOTHER link to the lies of Bob H. and why the Morris suit is wrong.

I'm aware of most of the so called "lies" of Bob H. Yet when they are put into context, it is usually the way bigfooters portray and misrepresent his words out of context, that is dishonest. They pale in comparison to Patterson and Gimlin's contradictions anyway. Why were Patterson and Gimlin never able to successfully explain when and where this film was developed, for instance?

Do you have the original, in context, words from Bob H. regarding the "horse hide" issue and why he would have said such a thing? Have you looked into this? If you do, you might understand why it's a non issue.

I'll repeat the request from your first linked article. If you can find a reliable source for that, it might go some way to indicate the author is not promoting nonsense based on credulity and bias. Can you provide something to substantiate this claim, please?

the creature in the film has been measured as standing at least 7'3" tall.

I agree that Patterson and Gimlin seem suspect. You have this wonderful footage that could conclusively prove things and they don't keep the receipts or bring in the lab to discuss this. I'd have taken the film to kodak or some high end processor to ensure that the film was well treated. I'm sure Kodak would have processed it for free at that point.

Patterson doesn't seem to have a great reputation and the story that Morris (likely costume maker) tells could be verified, like Patterson not returning the rented camera on time and authorities being called on him to get it returned. Moris tells a detailed story that doesn't seem contrived. Bob H. the supposed costume wearer first tells that the costume was made of horse hides. Could be Patterson told him that. Maybe Patterson didn't want people to know where he got the costume from. Bob H. has put himself in a very public situation with this and the downside is way more than the upside, so too with Morris.

That said, Bill Munns seems to have done a fair amount of work on this and his presentations seem to be well done. I did like the "Truth Behind: Bigfoot" documentary. I just don't think that there is evidence that convinces me on this, but I will keep an open mind. The Morris costume face matching the Patterson bigfoot face is another point that seems to support the suit theory, but still hard to conclude from even the better resolution stills of the film. The musculature some people see is likely reflecting highlights off the moving fur. I watched the clearer Munns version and it's not conclusive as to musculature at all in my opinion.

Keep the opinions and facts coming on this. This is a good thread.

The problem is that there is no end to bigfoot videos, literally if you take 15 minutes to look you will find hundreds. Half are what looks like obvious hoaxes or just out there for the lolz. The others? um, who knows. Though the freakiest ones are the howls some hear when there camping and such, and those who just have mysteriously disappeared.

There even is a video that is 1:40 minutes long of nothing but supposed bigfoot howls captured on tape. And no to mention all the different people who say they had a sighting, so ya, there are either a lot of hoaxes going around for a long time, or there may be more to this bigfoot thing after all.

But ya here's one of a call, in this case they found a little foot left behind. Must be some sort of hoax no doubt, perpetrating the whole littlefoot myth.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
The problem is that there is no end to bigfoot videos, literally if you take 15 minutes to look you will find hundreds

True galadofwarthethird and when we look at the obviousness of many of them, how many are proven hoaxes, it puts this claim about the PG film into perspective.

As an keen outdoorsy/ naturalist who usually carries a good quality camera, I can sympathize with bigfoot researchers. It's amazing how often a great shot is missed, regardless. Getting even well documented, mundane (though "comparatively rare") creatures in the right circumstances to capture good images isn't easy for an amatuer with limited time and resources. Lots of failure involved there.

If there were any truth to bigfoot, I can see the possibility that it could be there somewhere in amongst all of the inconclusive blobsquatches. It sure isn't in the PG film.

This sort of thing, along with stories, footprints, stick structures, claimed calls etc. will never rise to the level of genuine (scientific) evidence anyway, until someone finds something physical/ biological (bones, carcass, an actual creature) to indicate they exist. They are are the bona fide currency that sustains folklore, not science.

There are many reasons (that become overwhelming) as to why it is a cultural myth. I can understand people might be sure they have seen it, but this is historically not uncommon with myths and there are other options that this community simply turns their back on.There really isn't any physical signs to indicate such a thing impacts the ecology/environment, apart from leaving no biological evidence. This isn't really possible in any practical sense, given the claims. Bigfoot, as portrayed in popular culture, doesn't physically exist in NA. Though if someone does find a bigfoot (and I hope they do), I can't speak for others but I like the "I told you so" soup quite hot and the crow, well done with sauce. Very unlikely though.