Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

This is a Soap Box section of our Forum where those who hold passionate views/opinions regarding various aspects of Theology, Creation, Religion, Paranormal etc - pertaining to the Yowie can be POLITELY debated, away from our mainstream friendly Yowie / Bigfoot Discussion Board.

Be kind to each other. Our standard rules of etiquette and behaviour apply in all areas of our Forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scarts
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 am
Position: Researcher

Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Scarts » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:55 am

We've all seen it. What's wrong with it?

Image

Image

Image

themanfromglad
Silver Status
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:12 pm

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by themanfromglad » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:12 am

ROFLMAO!

User avatar
Sasgirl
Approved Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 6:15 am
Facebook Profile Page: https://www.facebook.com/thecryptocrew
Gender: Female
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Sasgirl » Fri May 23, 2014 12:22 pm

I'm a bigfoot believer and the PG film is considered the Holy Grail of bigfoot evidence. Even National Geographic touted it is the real thing in concise detail. But the story behind the film has been largely ignored and it's, to say the least, a bit shady. So before anyone makes a determination of whether the film is truly legitimate, they need to see the documentary " The Hoax of the Century." And there is only one place I know you can get your hands on it:

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/Find ... entury.htm

This documentary attempts to expose the hoax of the PG film right down to the last detail. The strange walk, the breasts of the creature, the costume, the circumstances behind it, everything. Whatever you believe, it will make you think twice about this film.

macquariedave

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by macquariedave » Fri May 23, 2014 2:04 pm

Sasgirl wrote:I'm a bigfoot believer and the PG film is considered the Holy Grail of bigfoot evidence. Even National Geographic touted it is the real thing in concise detail. But the story behind the film has been largely ignored and it's, to say the least, a bit shady. So before anyone makes a determination of whether the film is truly legitimate, they need to see the documentary " The Hoax of the Century." And there is only one place I know you can get your hands on it:

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/Find ... entury.htm

This documentary attempts to expose the hoax of the PG film right down to the last detail. The strange walk, the breasts of the creature, the costume, the circumstances behind it, everything. Whatever you believe, it will make you think twice about this film.
I tend to lean to the feeling that the only "hoax" perpetrated in this case is these attention-seeking hucksters who churn out spurious my-mind's-made-up claims of it being a fraud. Just how many nutters was it who claimed to be the "guy in the suit"? You cannot probably say it's 100% absolutely genuine, but a more balanced appraisal is available at the BFRO as one of their FAQs http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp

User avatar
Scarts
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 am
Position: Researcher

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Scarts » Fri May 23, 2014 5:54 pm

Out of curiosity Macquariedave, how many nutters HAVE claimed to be the man in the very female bigfoot costume? The hilarious thing is as a boy of the 70's I like many other people, actually thought the bigfoot in the film was a male. Everything about it screams male, until you realise those aren't manboobs like the the incredible hulk's, those are actually breasts.

macquariedave

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by macquariedave » Fri May 23, 2014 6:59 pm

Scarts wrote:Out of curiosity Macquariedave, how many nutters HAVE claimed to be the man in the very female bigfoot costume? The hilarious thing is as a boy of the 70's I like many other people, actually thought the bigfoot in the film was a male. Everything about it screams male, until you realise those aren't manboobs like the the incredible hulk's, those are actually breasts.

Do your own research.

User avatar
Scarts
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 am
Position: Researcher

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Scarts » Mon May 26, 2014 6:25 pm

Bob Heironimus is the only guy I can find to say he wore the suit.

You'd be tripping on mushrooms to suggest there are more suit wearing claimants!

macquariedave

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by macquariedave » Mon May 26, 2014 10:01 pm

Scarts wrote:Bob Heironimus is the only guy I can find to say he wore the suit.

You'd be tripping on mushrooms to suggest there are more suit wearing claimants!
Having read some of your posts, Scutts, I'd say you were the one off with the fairies . . .

User avatar
Scarts
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 am
Position: Researcher

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Scarts » Tue May 27, 2014 4:56 pm

Having read some of your posts, Scutts, I'd say you were the one off with the fairies . . .[/quote]


Really? Funny "how many nutters was it who claimed to be the "guy in the suit"?" equals a whopping big ONE, isn't it? One claimant in 46 years, by the one claimant actually photographed on set, er, I mean, on location! By the one guy with a similar build to the bigfoot with a similar walking gait. Thanks for letting me do my own research on this one, mac! Oh, and the fairies said to say "hi!"

User avatar
Searcher
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:18 pm

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Searcher » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:00 am

Some more thoughts on the Patterson-Gimlim film. As many will know, the footage was taken with a Kodak K-100 in 1967. This 16mm camera is capable of taking very clear pictures of TV broadcast quality. I have owned one for many years and have even shot TV commercials with it back in the 70’s. 16mm was the standard format used in TV News reporting right through to the mid 70’s when ENG cameras and videotape began to take over.

If you wanted to perpetrate a hoax, why would you not use an 8mm camera with its lower resolution? 16mm provides much more picture detail, something you wouldn’t want if you had something to hide.

As for my personal feelings about this controversial film, I’ve always thought the face didn’t look right when ‘Patty’ briefly turned to camera. On a positive side, I’ve listened to Bob Gimlin’s views on the History Channel’s Monster Quest and other interviews and he comes across, at least to me, as being believable. The other thing that springs to mind is how modern technology has allowed detailed research on muscle movement, including the female breasts and walking gait all of which indicate the ‘man in a suit’ hypothesis is probably flawed.

However you choose to look at it, the PGF has been instrumental in creating massive controversy and subsequent attention to the Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie etc enigma for almost 50 years. And that bottom line is almost certainly a positive...

User avatar
Neil Frost
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:07 pm
Position: New Member
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Neil Frost » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:21 pm

G'day Searcher,

If your name is Bob, please PM me!

Whatever the documentary, the solitary piece of supreme evidence for me was the high resolution image of the flexing hernia in the thigh muscle. For that time particularly, even Steven Spielberg said that a hoax was impossible!

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/ ... -they.html

Neil
a = 32 mm; b = 50.4 mm; c > 66.67 mm and < 68.11 mm IPD. From film neg degree separation 0.25˚ to 0.3˚ @ 13500 mm = IPD > 58.9 mm and < 70.7 mm. Mean IPD from average of both methods = 66.1 mm. Max pupil dilation ≈ 30 mm. Eye height ≈ 1850 mm.

User avatar
Simon M
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:36 am
Position: Unsure
Location: South Western Victoria

Re: Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

Unread post by Simon M » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:55 am

Scarts wrote:Bob Heironimus is the only guy I can find to say he wore the suit.

You'd be tripping on mushrooms to suggest there are more suit wearing claimants!
Ray Wallace has also claimed to have been the person in "the suit"...which, of course, nobody has ever been able to produce.

Post Reply