Finally clear evidence that the PG film is a hoax!

Finally, the Patterson-Gimlin film has been shown to be a definite hoax.

Here are the bullet points.

o there is clear evidence that the creature is completely stationary, feet together, arms at their side, for the opening 35 frames of film, as though waiting for his/her ‘cue’ to “Action”. You can see the position against the background trees.

o the PG film was supposedly done first, and then John Green and some friends went to the scene looked for tracks and roamed down the trail the creature followed. BUT IN FACT there’s compelling evidence to suggest that the John Green “research film” was done first, then the PG film, and the dates swapped. Obviously Green could not have known the track of the creature before it happened.
———

To see the details, read below and/or watch the Youtube videos by a nice man named Leroy Blevins Sr. Bear in mind that though good at what he does, Mr Blevins has not employed a basic proofreader, so forgive his English, spelling and syntax. He does good photo-analytic work, IMO.

I’d suggest reading my synopsis then looking at one or both YT vids and then come back and read what I wrote again if you need clarification. Again, there are plenty of reasons for suspicion and doubt about this film cited by many other researchers, but these two things are really the nails in the coffin of this exceptionally well-done hoax.

** Mr Blevins even crafts a believable ‘suit’ that shows muscle bunching characteristics.

———

1. In the first part of the film there is some shaky camera frames and some frames showing the ground. But, before the first of those ‘ground frames’ there is a clear, but brief image of the ‘creature’.

You can line up this first image using a set of three trees. One thin tree, one thick tree, and another thin tree.

After the approximately 13 frames of the ground go by, you can again see the creature. Now, I don’t know the speed that Roger’s camera was set on (either 18fps or 16fps) but everywhere else it appears that the creature takes one step every two frames. So if you have approximately 10 frames, you’d expect 5 steps, or L-R-L-R-L.

When the camera is back on ‘the creature’ again, there are several frames, approximately 18-20 where you see this vertical black image, but it’s still framed against the first of the three trees, IOW, exactly where it was during the 13 frames of ‘ground shots’. Then after about 30-35 frames, we finally see ‘the creature’ take a step. In the meantime, all the images are of the creature standing there legs together, and arms at his/"her" sides, just like an actor waiting for the director to say ‘ACTION!’.

At this point the creature starts to walk directly away from the camera for about 3-4 steps then turns to his right and then starts swinging their arms (her arms, if you like).

2. When you compare one of the ‘reenactments’ that was done by Green supposedly after the original sighting and look at the foreground, it appears that several of the fallen trees have mysteriously gained bark, and had a limb added. In the “earlier” PG film, the same tree has less bark and a few tree branches have more branches. The implication is that in reality the Green investigation footage where he retraces the path was actually taken BEFORE the PG film.

Obviously, how would John Green know the path the creature took before it happened. He wouldn’t. The implication is that they did the ‘research’ footage BEFORE the PG footage but then swapped the dates making the uninformed viewer think the PG footage came first. (We still do not know if Mr Gimlin was in on it.)

3. In the original footage, the title of the film is different. It’s ‘Bluff Creek Bigfoot’. But then John Green et.al bought that footage and worked with someone to re-photograph it and add color. The original footage creature is mostly BLACK. The new film now entitled ‘American Bigfoot’, the creature is colored by John Green (he admits this) and is labeled as a genre ’SF’ or “Science Fiction” genre (which is not that significant).

You can see all of this in a Youtube done by a very thorough photo-analyzer, but you have to overlook that his English, spelling, syntax and penchant for repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER, LOL and just see what he has to show.

Here’s the link.

Look around on his channel because he has some other interesting stuff on the JFK thing. (that’s a bit more hit and miss but still has some new finding, IMO).



More info on the history of the PG film and John Green and the copies.



Thanks to Mr Blevins for his work. This is not my work but I agree he has proved it is a hoax.

a reply to: Maverick7

I swear I'm not being a wise guy but did we really need any type of closure on this..don't think there are many on here who believed this to be true...but it is ATS

im a little confused. so if the film was shot at 16 or 18 frames per second. you're saying you expect 5 steps in 10 frames? wouldn't that be 5 steps in less than a second at that point? if you count that out with a second hand it seems to be a ridiculously fast pace.

Hasnt the guy in the suit already said it was fake?

Done by Blevin's Biblical Investigations, who has done extensive investigations of Noah's Ark, including timelines back to 4004 BC, the date God formed the Earth.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
im a little confused. so if the film was shot at 16 or 18 frames per second. you're saying you expect 5 steps in 10 frames? wouldn't that be 5 steps in less than a second at that point? if you count that out with a second hand it seems to be a ridiculously fast pace.

Yeah, it's confusing. I didn't do the analysis, but he does seem to show that every two frames, the creature takes one step.

I added the fps, because there's a minor controversy about whether Patterson had the setting on 18 or 16 and read it wrong.

The main point is not the speed, the fps, or the number of steps, but that there are 30-35 frames where the creature is now shown to be standing completely still, feet together, arms at the sides. Actual cryptids don't do that, the author suggests (and I concur).

As to fake, proven fake already, there are a lot of people who are still arguing about that, but as far as I was aware no clear exact proof existed. We have talk of female breasts and muscle movements and gait analysis and all sorts of things. It's not easy to see how the filmmakers got a 'perfect take' in one take. Normally, to do such a 'perfect' fake you'd have issues, and they'd have to start over. Except for this glitch, and the time swap of PG and Green, it's all been conjecture.

In addition, I like how this guy does his photointerpretation work. It's more like the way the gubmint photoanalysts work than amateurs. He looks outside the normal places that we'd expect.

Im not convinced either way as to whether the PG film is real or fake.

To play devils advocate to his argument:

So basically this guys argument is as the horses and the videographer initially approach the bigfoot is standing relatively still for a whole two seconds. (Witnesses often say that the bigfoot will attempt to stand motionless to not draw attention or will stand motionless until the person gets too close and essentially flushes it out)

Looks like the bigfoot basically confirms its been spotted and then goes "ah crap the usual stand still trick didnt work" and then decides to egress. Sounds like a plausible explanation to describe its behaviour other than its an actor waiting for its cue.

35 frames for one step. Its standing still for 35 frames!!! You know what that means!?! The subject was standing still for two seconds. Thats it. Could have paused to see what the hell was walking up on it, maybe takes a second to go "oh crap humans, errrr what should I do....bail."

His argument is all baseless conjecture.

Maverick7



We all know this film is a vile hoax. This film. As far as I am concerned there is more than enough evidence that a Bigfoot type creature exists.

originally posted by: schuyler
Done by Blevin's Biblical Investigations, who has done extensive investigations of Noah's Ark, including timelines back to 4004 BC, the date God formed the Earth.

Yes, he's quirky. But to me, I can overlook his peculiarities, lol.

originally posted by: Maverick7

originally posted by: schuyler
Done by Blevin's Biblical Investigations, who has done extensive investigations of Noah's Ark, including timelines back to 4004 BC, the date God formed the Earth.

Yes, he's quirky. But to me, I can overlook his peculiarities, lol.

He says Noah was 500 years old when he started having sons. That's not just quirky. The guy is a complete nutcase. Did you know back in Noah's time there were only 210 days in the year and that's why people "lived longer" back then? Did you know the tallest hill back then was 500 feet and that's how God could flood the Earth? Mountains came later. His veracity as a researcher is complete toast. Why should I believe a thing he says about the Patterson film? This guy has no expertise analyzing anything. I'm fine with the film being bogus, but Blevin has not proven anything at all. It's simply embarrassing to claim he has proof of anything.

I wasn't aware editing the film to suit a persons interests is a research method? Wasn't this already deemed a hoax by the guy that wore the suit?

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: Maverick7

I swear I'm not being a wise guy but did we really need any type of closure on this..don't think there are many on here who believed this to be true...but it is ATS

Why not?
I dont see any major big deal about a yet to be discovered primate class. its not like other primates are simply unheard of unicorns in the wild. Plenty of people have said they have eye witness accounts of these primates..sure..why not. its semi interesting, like hearing about a giant boar sub species.

So, if the Bigfoot stood still at first, that means the film "must be" a hoax? No. Just no.

As for the "guy with the suit" - again, no! No proof, no suit, no way to verify his statement. In fact, more than one analysis has been done of this film, showing that the stride, the arm and leg length, etc., do not match a human being.

It's the real deal.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Hasnt the guy in the suit already said it was fake?

www.bfro.net...

I'm a big fan of Bigfoot, although I find it extremely implausible that a breeding population of creatures that size could go this long without becoming very obvious. They have to eat a lot, and they have to poop a lot. They're going to be noticed, if they exist.

That being said, including this critique, I have yet to see a comprehensive and definitive debunking of the PG film. It could very well be the greatest hoax film ever made, but I've never seen anybody definitely prove that's what it is.

a reply to: Sremmos80

It's a bit of a mess, but the short version is a guy came forward claiming to have been the one wearing the suit, but he had no evidence other than his own testimony, and at least one of the Patterson/Gimlin duo said in no uncertain terms that the guy was lying. Same thing about the accusation that John Chambers (costume/makeup guy for Planet Of The Apes) made the suit, he's said that he didn't and it's much better-looking than anything they could have made.

And if I'm recalling correctly, it was Bob Heironimus that claimed to have been in the suit, and he's got less credibility than the average used car salesman.

a reply to: Maverick7

Those frames are not all the same, there is body movement, just that no steps were taken, what's more likely there is that the 'Bigfoot' turned the body in a twist movement and looked round a couple of times in the same spot, the videoman does not mention that, however that is just what Patterson has said.
The Patterson 'Bigfoot' has never been proven a hoax.
The next question is why 'man in a suit' or rather, why not just have a male figure with no need to have the female figure that was seen, (but only just) complete with the boobies?
Lastly, whicheverway, what is seen in the film is not an ape, it's some kind of homo with an intuitive stride, not an intuitive dive to all fours to escape.

He is just another armchair photo/video analyst, I spent time during the early internet years trying to deal with people using limited video/photo knowledge to "prove" some theory. I've spent alot more time debunking thanks to the internet :/
The video itself is no doubt questionable and there is alot of good research on it, but a youtube video analyst should always be taken with a grain a salt however professional they may appear to be to you. His analysis is lacking in both technical data and approach and his theory is tenuous at best.

Having seen one I really don't care if the film is fake or not. They exist period. If you have time and money come see me I will show you where to go stick your gadgets to find one.

Though odds are they move with the seasons so persistence is a must. Unless they are operating space ships and everything that comes with them they are detectable.

The one I saw as well as the one my mothers ex saw by Mt Saint Helens happened to be naked with no apparent gadgets or utility belts so we are not dealing with batman here.

Having seen the critter, it's really out there.

As for the film, and this horribly shoddy attempt at ridiculing it, experts in the field of cinema fakery, at the time, have repeatedly said, they couldn't have done it. Even today, it would be hard to do...not to mention hideously expensive.

So this guy feeble attempt should be taken with a double handful of salt. Won't call him a liar...but if the shoe fits.