Original Unedited Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film from 1967

bob heironimus has passed two polygraphs years apart saying he wore the suit in the film.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

bob heironimus has passed two polygraphs years apart saying he wore the suit in the film.

BS.

Those old guys are liars because wtf does it matter anyway? They originated the film and therefore can shape it from their own experience to fit whatever narrative they want, plus you get a little celebrity and money for "telling the story"? 🤷🏻 Why not? Otherwise, the story ends with the film.

Its ALL about body mechanics and the difference between US and THEM in bodily structure and mobility (locomotion). Here's an example of the methods used. Same can be applied to the Patterson film.


Here's another example:

My mom and uncle swore they saw Bigfoot in the late 30s/early40s? As kids. Mom said it looked like that video but was red like an orangutan.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
If they faked it, why did they spend so much money and time on the suit just to shake the camera?

Realism? Maybe they did testing before and found that to work the best to seem real.

Supposably after Mount St. Helens blew there were 100s of dead and injured Big Foots that the Government evacuated and here we are once again with just footage from the 60s. With IR 1024p drones that cost almost nothing now and everyone with a high-end camera on their phones, we are still nowhere closer to anything. People are constantly going up to Mount Adams and other Big Foot hot spots with drones and still nothing..

a reply to: esteay812

Interesting, almost look like there are two of them in the end, the first one is walking behind a tree in the forground.
And the last two seconds you can see another one in the distance further back.

Anyone I have always believe it is a fake presented as real, why? because you can see shoes/boots he is wearing in the start of the video.

originally posted by: esteay812
a reply to: UpThenDown

I haven't watched yet, but first thoughts on VFX guys analysis make me wonder why their opinion is more valid than anyone else, considering this video isn't a product of VFX. Maybe they have better insight from creating convincing video using VFX and physical methods.

Agreed. That's kind of like asking a brain surgeon's opinion on a heart operation, all because they've been inside the human body.

originally posted by: esteay812
a reply to: ColeYounger

I am not convinced of their existence one way or another, but I believe they are probably out there in some form or explanation, if that makes sense. The best visual evidence we have is this film and we all know its hard to determine what we're actually looking at. Should be able to find some remnants of the habitation. . . fur, urine, feces, dens, etc.

People find fur and dens fairly often though. The enhanced video you sent was very intriguing. The original as well. The guy behind the camera is calm the whole time until he sees this thing and then freaks out trying to get closer or in a better position. And not even movie magic from the 70's was good enough to pull something like that off.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Supposably after Mount St. Helens blew there were 100s of dead and injured Big Foots that the Government evacuated and here we are once again with just footage from the 60s. With IR 1024p drones that cost almost nothing now and everyone with a high-end camera on their phones, we are still nowhere closer to anything. People are constantly going up to Mount Adams and other Big Foot hot spots with drones and still nothing..

Ive seen a similar quote on reddit before, basically spec ops teams went in after it blew to collect bigfoot corpses. Fun story if nothing else

I am a believer in Sasquatch, when it "flits" into our realm. And by "Sasquatch" I refer to the zipper-less variety.

There have been many cases where Sasquatch tracks are followed, sometimes for miles, and then suddenly they simply stop, as if whoever/whatever was making the tracks simply vanished from our realm. Several cases, as mentioned earlier by another astute member.

Go back and read myriad accounts over hundreds of years and Sasquatch appears to be mostly covert; extremely intent on hiding or hasty retreat. Such is why I have a decidedly marked suspicion about known huckster Patterson and his supposed man-of-his-word partner and their absolutely terrific film. A film that I find very compelling. But here is my problem, the framework. P/G set-out with the intent to film a Sasquatch. Try that on for size, people. As the old saying goes, you don't find Sasquatch, Sasquatch finds you. Well, not only did P/G find one, they managed to film it dead center for an extended period AND the subject seemed all too happy to remain out in the open so as to be seen, not unlike a prancing model walking the catwalk. This behavior is decidedly contrary to the myriad reports about Sasquatch being stealth, covert and intent on hiding in a mere instant. It didn't suddenly dart for the nearest foliage, it walked a proverbial catwalk. Further, the subject barrels through the film with the finesse of a steamroller; not the sudden, fast-twitch reactionary swiftness as related in those many many past accounts. And why isn't there more to be seen? Why can we not see it barrel into the brush? As another atuste member brought up, why don't we see film of it penetrating the brush into the aether of time? For two armed guys with the agenda to film a Sasquatch they certainly lacked a certain expected bravery as our suspicious subject set for the foliage, despite their great curiosity. All of that aside, I love the P/G film.

Like with orbs. Like with many UFO accounts and some on film. Like with the supposed CIA backed remote viewing account from decades ago of creatures in Loch Ness that suddenly vanish. I could go on and on. A re-occurring theme of sorts. A pattern? It would seem so.

I truly believe the whole Sasquatch legend suggest something more paranormal than any super high IQ offshoot of man or undiscovered hominid.

a reply to: Spacespider

I wouldn't be surprised that (if it's real) there would be more than 1 of them. I'm probably off base, but something in me wants to compare their potential behavior to a mama bear.

a reply to: BiffTannen

I don't know enough about the subject to have a good opinion on what's happening in the reports, it's certainly fascinating. The fact that they were looking for bigfoot, and found one after a short time, does hurt the credibility in my opinion. It would be much more believable if they were just scouting the land or something.

originally posted by: Dapaga

Lastly, in 2005, the Morris Costume Company owner, Philip Morris, claimed he made the infamous costume for the film. He says he got a call from the men and was commissioned to make the costume. Nearly 40 years later, this professional costumer, with all his years of experience and costume materials readily available, tried to remake the suit. This is how he did at "recreating" the costume he supposedly made.

Let's compare!
Look at the slope on top of the head and chin, the back of the neck etc...

I'd say he's pretty good at making costumes... 100% match.

a reply to: MatteBlak

I'd like to read about that. I've bout heard much about accounts relating to MSH. Anywhere you recommend looking to find the best info on it?

I appreciate y'all telling me about the backstory and giving information about the whole thing. I've learned a lot just from this thread. Thanks!

originally posted by: MatteBlak

Ive seen a similar quote on reddit before, basically spec ops teams went in after it blew to collect bigfoot corpses. Fun story if nothing else

The "government" is always a fall back excuss to everything where we just get stuck.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Supposably after Mount St. Helens blew there were 100s of dead and injured Big Foots that the Government evacuated and here we are once again with just footage from the 60s. With IR 1024p drones that cost almost nothing now and everyone with a high-end camera on their phones, we are still nowhere closer to anything. People are constantly going up to Mount Adams and other Big Foot hot spots with drones and still nothing..

The problem with IR is it is not effective in heavy forest canopy. Yeti/abominable snow men would be more easy to find. Also, one would think that a few forest cams would've caught big feet by now. And in this day an age, any supposed sighting of a big foot or any other cryptid, and even UFO or alien without nary a pic or video beggars belief.

As for the St. Helens eruption big foot recovery stories, wouldn't someone or even multiple people have taken photographs (the old-fashioned kind) or taken a finger, hand, foot or some fur as a souvenir, and DNA evidence from it would have been presented by now. The DNA studies put out to date are not all convincing.

The biggest problems with the notion of big feet existing is that there is no evidence of skeletal remains or scat, no fossil evidence either in North America or across Asia and Africa, and that all other primates live in fairly large troops. If big feet lived in little groups of no more than four individuals, as they generally are reported seen, they would suffer from extreme in-breeding and die out soon enough.

And as to the Patterson film, it looks rather baggy, i.e. like a costume. Also, most of the film is well photographed, but when the furry thing comes along the picture gets very shaky, and off-centered, with the subject being totally out of the frame.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I think there is no indisputable proof it's real and, because there are people who believe it, it will always be a topic of discussion. After reading a little bit about it, it seems that it boils down to people who want to believe something like that exists and people who think its fantasy and silly to believe.

I still think it's far more likely that this is someone in a suit. Looks too clean

a reply to: sonicblue7

I don't know. It seems probable, when you consider they were out looking for bigfoot. . . and found him (her). . . but maybe not. I wish we had real proof, one way or the other.