Patterson Footage creature proven NOT a suit

reply to post by kidflash2008


The suit was apparently produced at one point... except it looked nothing like the thing in the video.

The head was the wrong shape, it had no breasts and the soles of the feet were black (compared to the hairless look in the video).

So I don't give this guy the time of day.

Edit to add: This thread by Gemwolf is about the suit I'm thinking of (I think).



[edit on 23-8-2009 by fooffstarr]

The argument of real or fake has been covered to death on here. Just do a quick search on "Patterson Suit" on ATS. Here's a great post on the topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And not JUST because I made a fabulous point.

As it turns out, the technology was around to make a more than adequate suit in 1967. If you visit the above topic you will see pics of some fine examples and likely suspects. Wah Chang had built suits during this time period WITH John Chambers, one of the "suspects" in the building of the Patterson suit. One of the sculpted heads built by Chang looks an awful lot like Patty's head. There's also a pic in the article of one of the "ape creatures" from the movie One Million Years B.C. that looks almost exactly like the Patty costume. The movie was released in 1966. That's before Patty popped up so there is more than enough proof to show that the technology was there to build the suit.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I believe Bigfoot is real. I just don't believe Patterson filmed the real deal in 1967.

Originally posted by PostPro
The argument of real or fake has been covered to death on here. Just do a quick search on "Patterson Suit" on ATS. Here's a great post on the topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And not JUST because I made a fabulous point.

As it turns out, the technology was around to make a more than adequate suit in 1967. If you visit the above topic you will see pics of some fine examples and likely suspects. Wah Chang had built suits during this time period WITH John Chambers, one of the "suspects" in the building of the Patterson suit. One of the sculpted heads built by Chang looks an awful lot like Patty's head. There's also a pic in the article of one of the "ape creatures" from the movie One Million Years B.C. that looks almost exactly like the Patty costume. The movie was released in 1966. That's before Patty popped up so there is more than enough proof to show that the technology was there to build the suit.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I believe Bigfoot is real. I just don't believe Patterson filmed the real deal in 1967.

Actually, one key piece of tech, which has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, was not available in 1967.

The stretch fur material.

Special effects back in the 60s relied on a non-stretch material when creating fake fur as it was the only item of its type available. The stretch variant was created in the 70s and is still in use today in costumes and special effects.

The Patterson footage clearly shows a fur / skin with elastic properties, properties which could not have been created with the materials available to special effects designers in the mid 60's.

Yeah, I thought about that whole stretch fur scenario. The problem is I don't see the stretch fur. No one else saw this for years until someone said, "Hey, look! It's stretch fur material." Now everyone sees it, LOL.

I don't see stretch fur. I don't see facial movement. I see shadows and light refraction, but no true smooth musculature movement. And I don't think anyone else does either. My reason? It's just not there. Not on the original film source. No matter how sophisticated we get with our new digital enhancing technology you will ALWAYS AND FOREVER WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, be limited to the quality of your source material to a great degree. It's just a fact. Anything outside of the original source is either interpretation (human) or interpolation (non-human). If the original source, whether it be visual or audio, is incapable of capturing the required "detail", then nothing will ever occur to make that detail "reappear" short of magic or fabrication. Yes, things can be enhanced, but the problem is that you have to trust that the interpolation or interpretation is accurate and infallible and unfortunately for us, both systems are imperfect.

The 16mm film camera, film stock & lens, operator sophistication and the problem with the natural elements all combine to limit the quality and resolution of the Patterson film.
No matter how hard we try, we will always be limited by that original material. To make matters even more difficult and limit that source material even further, there is NO ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. The original was lost, stolen, misplaced or disintegrated long ago. We are stuck with, at best, a copy of the original.

Does anyone not remember the big stink a few years back about the "zipper bell" in the costume. Half of the people SAW the bell, the other half saw an artifacting issue from the enhancement. That instance took a while to finally die down. I believe the "it's just an artifact" crowd finally won out.

My point is that every few years a new expert with new proof pops up to blow the lid off the Patterson film. Proof that it's real, Proof that it's fake. I guarantee you within 5 years there will be another "major breakthrough" in this argument of real or fake.

If you want to really impress people, let's find the original film and the original camera and lens. THEN, and only then, can we get a real foothold into digging into the facts of the Patterson film.

Got my fingers crossed...

I think the Patterson footage is a fascinating subject, and I saw where the muscles in the back moved. I don't see how anyone could have faked that back in the 60's. I don't know if it's real, but I wish they could prove that it is real!

Originally posted by fooffstarr

The Patterson footage clearly shows a fur / skin with elastic properties, properties which could not have been created with the materials available to special effects designers in the mid 60's.

The ape suits in the movie 1 Million Years B.C. look identical to Patty. This was released a year before Patterson shot his footage.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9e5c5ecfd88.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/662894d8603d.jpg[/atsimg]

Planet of the Apes that came out in 1968 also had great monkey suits.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/051c4e3ca32f.jpeg[/atsimg]

reply to post by testrat


I will concede the image you present does look highly similar.

However, I haven't seen the movie and cannot tell from a still image how the material it is made of moves and stretches.

Thanks to some of the enhancements done to the Patterson footage in recent years, some remarkable detail can be seen in the movement of leg musculature and the elasticity of the skin/fur.

If you could show me that degree of detail reproduced in a 1960's film you would be well on the way to offering a strong counter argument. (There is nothing I love more than being proved wrong, because you learn something. So if you can prove me wrong please do).

reply to post by fooffstarr


I did watch the trailer of the movie and the ape suits look nothing like the Patterson footage. I do think Mr Patterson lucked out and got footage of an honest female Sasquatch.

the funny things is that the guy who made some of the monkey suits in question, maintains that there is no way the patterson film is of someone wearing a suit.
His reasons are numerous and based in the experience of making suits for the film industry

In reference to the "blog" post about it being hoaxed: Most would agree that the biggest argument against the Patterson-Gimlin footage is that "Patterson was a scumbag and actively went searching for Bigfoot and low and behold, he found a Bigfoot!"

Guess what, have you ever heard of a thing called the lottery? Somewhere out there a scumbag that doesn't deserve to get rich has won millions of dollars through getting lucky, one-in-hundreds of millions type of odds. People have gone looking for Bigfoot in the past, currently do, and will in the future. The fact that Roger Patterson actively went looking for Bigfoot and found one was very lucky, it doesn't mean it's fake. You also certainly have a better chance of finding one (and recording it) when you're prepared. Other people potentially find evidence, some unexplained - some hoaxed, but other people do try as well.

Patterson was a dirtbag, yes. Did he deserve to find a Bigfoot after all the problems in his life and consequently make a lot of money off of it? No, he didn't. But it happened. Any opinion-based claims that he was hoaxing just because he actively went searching hold no value. It just means he won the lottery.

The episode of Monsterquest was extremely compelling. The crew used every possible expert to determine the authenticity of the film. In the end the modern day costume designer for Hollywood says there is no way there is a human in the suit. The forensic scientist that enhanced the film says that there is no way. Now I know nothing about either one of these topics so I have to take their word on it.

IMO the video will always be inconclusive due to quality and modern day standards for proof. However, for those that argue it is fake because Patterson was a scumbag, well for a scumbag he was a smart one. Remember he pulled off the Hoax (in their opinion) that is still yet to be proved a Hoax.

I would like to share my experience with people that believe, because no one believes me here where I live besides my sisters fiance. I live in the central part of Ohio, a little to the east. I live in the country, and have all my life. Nothing here was ever unusual. I know my animals, when I hear a an animal running in the woods I know whether its a deer or a little animal. Nothing weird, until a couple months ago.

It all started when My sister and I were coming home from a friends (my sis lives right beside me). We got out of the car once we arrived home. Across the road, we heard a very deep cough, and we thought it was our neighbor, since it was on his property. So we called out "TOM is that you?" and there was nothing. It was a very deep cough that just didn't sound right. So we got creeped out and went inside. This kept on for a couple of weeks. So one night I decided to walk across the yard to my sisters to hang out with her and her fiance. Suddenly, down on the road (We live on a little hill) this big black mass was walking the same way I was. It was dark out, and the only light that was on was my sisters porch light. It was on two feet, and walking not like a human would. Its shoulders were propped up...well this is hard to explain what it looked like. Well it started running and it sounded like barefeet hitting the road. I guess it heard me which caused it to run. I kept walking and staring at it cus I was just...so shocked. So I got to my sisters driveway and it got to the end of the driveway but before me. It looked up at me. its eyes were glowing and it stood at least 6 feet 6 inches. It made grunting sounds when it ran too. Well it ran down the road and into the woods across the road. I just was so shaken that I could hardly talk. Never in my life did I experience something like that. I have always believed in bigfoot. But not where I live!!

My mom also had an experience too when she was younger and living out here. She was in the garage at her friends house and they were just having fun and partying a little. All the sudden they heard something and so her friend got her dad. it was out in the barn. So he walked down there to find that their goats head was completly torn off. So he made them all go in the house.

So any thoughts on why I would suddenly see this creature and never before? Do they migrate?

reply to post by testrat


That looks vaguely similar but look at the sheer bulk on the creature in the Patterson film compared to the scrawny guy from 1 Million BC, and it doesn't look like blubber but muscle. The monkeys for Planet of the Apes were also skinny. Of course I suppose a monkey suit could have been specially tailored and Patterson got an offensive lineman to play Bigfoot.

For me the holy grail was when they cleaned up the footage a bit and it showed the muscles moving on the legs, that was definitive enough when coupled with eye witness reports and the fact that numerous people all claimed to be the person in the suit and no one could decide who it really was or prove it was them...

I couldn't watch the doco sadly, only a short highlight segment. It would be interesting to see the points explained that were made in the op, particularly the part about the feet. They have always appeared to be rubber soles to me. In the past I have seen some "expert" analysis that I found less than convincing (possibly to the point of being humerus) and cast a bit of doubt IMO on the impartiality of what are called "experts". So much conflicting information on this that in the end only leaves it open to each persons opinion. In general I tend to have the opinion that the best thing this film has going for it (in terms of not being able to prove it a hoax) is the same thing that causes the scientific community to generally regard it as being of little value, the poor quality. Though I don't say bigfoot isn't real, I have always had a lot of doubts about this film, to me it is still a hoax. Though I will keep trying to find the video in question.

arrrgh I flip between its real its fake so often I'm dizzy! There's a bigfoot video by Harley Hoffman and that one looks pretty good too but I don't know anything about the video or him so I'm not sure what to make of it....

CLEARLY a Photoshop...

originally posted by: Ajax
In reference to the "blog" post about it being hoaxed: Most would agree that the biggest argument against the Patterson-Gimlin footage is that "Patterson was a scumbag and actively went searching for Bigfoot and low and behold, he found a Bigfoot!"

Guess what, have you ever heard of a thing called the lottery? Somewhere out there a scumbag that doesn't deserve to get rich has won millions of dollars through getting lucky, one-in-hundreds of millions type of odds. People have gone looking for Bigfoot in the past, currently do, and will in the future. The fact that Roger Patterson actively went looking for Bigfoot and found one was very lucky, it doesn't mean it's fake. You also certainly have a better chance of finding one (and recording it) when you're prepared. Other people potentially find evidence, some unexplained - some hoaxed, but other people do try as well.

Seek, and ye shall find. A very useful parable, I use it all the time.

originally posted by: testrat


The ape suits in the movie 1 Million Years B.C. look identical to Patty. This was released a year before Patterson shot his footage.

In 1979 a dozen of the best costume designers that could be found were working on “The Empire Strikes Back”. All of them were interviewed and they all said the Patterson film was the real deal, because none of them could make a costume that good. They said the only person they knew of who could do it was John Chambers, the guy who did “Planet Of The Apes”. And Chambers said not only did he not do it, he did not think anyone else did either. He too said it was not a suit.

Is it real or not? I have camped before but not where bigfoot
lives so I haven't worried much, but when camping out in the
woods in bigfoot territory, would make me concerned, not
about people in ape suits, but a cryptid murderer.

Six Most Believable Bigfoot Videos:
www.youtube.com...
Patterson Video:
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

a reply to: Drawsoho Don`t think I`d worry about bigfoot.Meth labs and pot growers are the real danger.Bigfoots may exist,haven`t ruled out the possibility myself.I have never seen evidence of one and I have a LOT of time in backcountry in Tn,N.Carolina and the Sierra`s in California.I would love to believe,but unless I see one or someone has evidence....