Why I don't think Bigfoot exists..., page 2

When people point out the muscle movement in the suit, that is what I mean by people ignoring the other facts.

Like this creature hiding it's existence for so long, but here it is not running away or attacking, but rather out for a stroll.

I also think that the lighting conditions and the cheaper quality camera is why some think that the Patterson Bigfoot looks more real than the ones shown in Planet of The Apes and Lost in Space. A better quality camera would be more clear.

It should also be stated that several well known special effects men have said that they believe someone working in their industry created the suit. I believe one of them stated that the suit looked like one from Lost in Space, with a different head.

I found this on the website www.parascope.com. Most of you have probably read it, but I think it is very interesting:

But many others feel certain that Patterson's Bigfoot was a fake. Being established in the "Bigfoot business," Patterson stood to profit from fabricating film footage of the creature. Bigfoot expert John Napier pointed out that the footprint casts were physiologically inconsistent with the height of the creature and the length of its stride as shown in the film. If the creature was a fake, everyone agrees that it was a remarkably skillful one. The only known source of such a high quality of costume and makeup in 1967 was the movie special effects industry, and in fact there is strong evidence that this Bigfoot came from Hollywood.

After lengthy investigations and interviews, journalist Mark Chorivinsky has found that the consensus among the movie-effects industry professionals is that the film depicts a prankster in a skillfully crafted costume. In fact, many state that the falsity of the Patterson film has been common knowledge in the business for years. The makeup artist Chorivinsky found most frequently associated with the Bigfoot film is John Chambers, a legendary elder statesman in the field of monster-making.

Chambers is best known as the makeup mastermind behind the Planet of the Apes films. His innovative and highly articulated ape masks won him an Academy Award in 1968. Chambers created monster costumes for dozens of other movies and TV shows, including The Outer Limits and Lost in Space. Chorivinsky reports none of the makeup professionals he spoke with had firsthand knowledge that Chambers had created the Patterson Bigfoot, but a large number of them either felt that it was widely accepted that he was responsible for it, or else reasoned that Chambers was the only artist at the time skillful enough to have crafted such a costume.

Chambers, who currently resides in a Los Angeles nursing home in frail health, has recently told interviewers that he had nothing to do with the Bigfoot seen in Patterson's film. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence implicating Chambers's involvement is compelling. The Patterson film was shot in 1967, in the same timeframe that Chambers was working on Planet of the Apes. Chambers often did uncredited work, and would not have been opposed to a project in which his contributions would remain unknown. The Patterson Bigfoot shows evidence of having a water bag under the fur in the stomach area, a trick used to make a gorilla suit move like real flesh. This liquid stomach technique was developed by Charlie Gemora, with whom Chambers had worked at Paramount. Chambers created monster suits for Lost in Space in 1965 and 1966 which look very similar to the creature in the Patterson film, only with a different head. Chambers may have recycled them to fabricate the Patterson Bigfoot.

Perhaps the most striking evidence is the fact that Chambers is known to have participated in another Bigfoot hoax: The Burbank Bigfoot. This was a 7' 4" Bigfoot carcass painstakingly built in Chambers' Burbank garage over a plaster body cast of actor Richard Kiel, best known as the villain Jaws from the James Bond movies. It is unclear who commissioned the Burbank Bigfoot or what became of it, but one account explains that it was created to be part of a traveling sideshow.

In October 1997, upon the thirtieth anniversary of the Patterson film, new reports surfaced to confirm that Chambers had concocted the creature. This time, movie director John Landis stepped forward to verify what he said had been known among Hollywood make-up artists for years. "That famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers," Landis said. The director said that Chambers had revealed this secret to him when they worked together on Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970.

I have several theories as to why the footage was so short.

I believe that the suit contained a fairly large man, either a body builder or someone overweight. I believe whoever constructed the suit might have warned them not to run in the suit because it may not hold together. This is why the person only walked in the costume.

Another theory is that the area in which the movie was shot was full of mountains and trees. Had they shot a film of the creature running into the woods (Patterson said it disappeared into the woods and they lost it), I think a human inside a suit would have trouble maneuvering through the trees and rocks. This would have blew the hoax.

From the article above, "Bigfoot expert John Napier pointed out that the footprint casts were physiologically inconsistent with the height of the creature and the length of its stride as shown in the film."

I also believe that the arms (obviously) had extensions that weren't controllable, so if the person had swung the arms too much, they might bend awkwardly. I don't think that the person wearing the suit was capable of making a fist either.

So, had the creature been running for example, it would have most surely been seen as a hoax.

I think that this movie was the best hoax of all time, but the one thing mistake that gives it away to me is the creatures mannerism. Had the creature been running away from the 2 men on horse back (1 who had been thrown to the ground) then I think it would have been flawless even with the 17 seconds or so of footage.