Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

[Simon M]

What's needed is decent quality video/images that reveals details and indicates that what we're seeing couldn't possibly be human.

You mean like PGF

No, I don't.

The questionable nature of that footage is what makes it compelling. You can't rule out either possibility because it's purely a matter of opinion. There's nothing definitive in it which 100% proves it's really what it's reputed to be and there's nothing definitive in it that 100% proves it's a fake. People with both these viewpoints will use different aspects of the film to argue their cases. Both are convinced they're correct based on having seen the same film.

It's that open question which has given it the weird status it's acquired.

[ripperton]

Simon its negligent as a researcher to judge a video on personal opinion.
Ive never had a problem with PGF based on my own understanding of Bio Mechanics plus
I trust the experts slightly more than I trust my own acumen because
they have more resources and more experience in niche fields and sciences.
Something which I think you dont understand is there actually IS a point
where you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a logic used in courts of law.
You cant convict a suspect on personal opinion.
The fact that no one has been able to successfully prove that PGF is fake.
Many experts with experience in niche fields and sciences say its genuine.
The fact it was filmed not video'd. PGF went beyond reasonable doubt a long time ago.
You know youre in denial when you quash existing evidence through personal opinion, then
ask for more proof which you will also quash through personal opinion.
Theres never enough proof.

[inthedark]

Simon its negligent as a researcher to judge a video on personal opinion.
Ive never had a problem with PGF based on my own understanding of Bio Mechanics plus
I trust the experts slightly more than I trust my own acumen because
they have more resources and more experience in niche fields and sciences.
Something which I think you dont understand is there actually IS a point
where you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a logic used in courts of law.
You cant convict a suspect on personal opinion.
The fact that no one has been able to successfully prove that PGF is fake.
Many experts with experience in niche fields and sciences say its genuine.
The fact it was filmed not video'd. PGF went beyond reasonable doubt a long time ago.
You know youre in denial when you quash existing evidence through personal opinion, then
ask for more proof which you will also quash through personal opinion.
Theres never enough proof.

The problem lies in burden of proof. That is ALWAYS on the person making the claim. It is not on the observer, to disprove the claim. Further, anything which is not falsifiable cannot be dealt with via the scientific method. The PGF fails both 'tests'. That is not opinion.

As regards opinion though .. just as many (if not more) experts have dismissed it as a fake, as have said it's real. Therefore cannot attribute any weight to expert input, since it's contradicted by the next guy.

Finally, there really is 'enough' proof, we just don't have it yet. Anything EMPIRICAL, falsifiable, and testable will do it. Unambiguous DNA (tested and retested, then peer reviewed) or a body would be ideal.

[inthedark]

All we see is a figure walking on a hillside. The figure is so far off it could be anyone and there's nothing that directly links the walking figure on the hill with the still images of the prints and the chewed-up watermelons, etc.

My impression is that this is as fake as all f***.

What's needed is decent quality video/images that reveals details and indicates that what we're seeing couldn't possibly be human. Literally every video I've ever seen could easily be someone in a suit. I'm not going to consider any video as being potentially genuine until I see a level of detail and clarity that cannot easily be dismissed. It boils down to the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' principle.

That video might be the real McCoy for all I know - but I wouldn't bet money on it, because it doesn't show us anything that a hoaxer couldn't replicate with relative ease.

Well said!

[Simon M]

Simon its negligent as a researcher to judge a video on personal opinion.
Ive never had a problem with PGF based on my own understanding of Bio Mechanics plus
I trust the experts slightly more than I trust my own acumen because
they have more resources and more experience in niche fields and sciences.
Something which I think you dont understand is there actually IS a point
where you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a logic used in courts of law.
You cant convict a suspect on personal opinion.
The fact that no one has been able to successfully prove that PGF is fake.
Many experts with experience in niche fields and sciences say its genuine.
The fact it was filmed not video'd. PGF went beyond reasonable doubt a long time ago.
You know youre in denial when you quash existing evidence through personal opinion, then
ask for more proof which you will also quash through personal opinion.
Theres never enough proof.

I understand the point I made perfectly well.

I've stated that there are two completely contradictory viewpoints people have drawn from watching the same film.

That's an objective fact - not a matter of 'denial' or 'not understanding' my own arguments.

Your own opinion is that the film is real, so that's what you insist is the 'correct' viewpoint. You've no more proof of that than anyone who's seen the same film and concluded that it 'must' be fake. Therefore, there are two differing viewpoints. Based on the same piece of evidence.

Go ahead and present your conclusive proof that what I said was incorrect. If you're going to accuse me of not understanding my own arguments please go to the trouble of making sure your own are coherent.

Sometimes juries cannot reach a unanimous verdict...or did you not understand what you were saying?

See how condescending it is when someone talks down to you?

[Black]

The Patterson film itself is two dimensional of a three dimensional place. There were also photos taken of the alleged footprint tracks and cast in plaster. These photos are also 2d of 3d objects, being footprints.

I know 3d computer models have been made of the bluff creek area in an attempt to analyze the event.

Does anybody know if a 3d computer model has been made, of the footprint track, placed correctly in the bluf creek model, to see if the foot placement correctly matches the footprint of patty in the original film?

Its my suspicion the tracks were created at a different time.

[Black]

Oops, I meant to add, we know the size of Patty's feet from the alleged footprints left behind.

I own a copy of one of those footprint casts. It's very, very flat, folks, and I'm happy to make copies and mail them out to whoever wants one.

So, when we talk about the Patterson film, we aren't just talking about the film. We're also talking about the foot prints Patty supposedly left behind, the spacing and placement of those prints, and how well they marry up to what we see in the film. (The film "should" be actual footage of each of those footprints later cast, being made.)

We actually do have alleged 3d information left behind from what is seen in the film. It should be extremely easy to marry the prints up, if the prints and film are both authentic. If any of them weren't where the film indicates they should be, it strengthens the argument in the opposite direction.

[ripperton]

All we see is a figure walking on a hillside. The figure is so far off it could be anyone....

Well said!

Not really.
SImons analysis is kind of simple. He sees a figure walking on a hillside, he notes its very far off,
then discounts it as fake while lending enormous authority to his words.
Just not technical enough.
I see a uniformly dark bipedal figure walking slowly across a boulder strewn hillside.
I see heat haze in the image indicating the subject is over 1 kilometre away as the videographer states
"its zoomed all the way in". Has the camera nicely mounted to a tripod eliminating any wobble or need for stabilization.
I then note the need for a scale comparison as I stated in the YouTube video comments "you should go down there with
the camera running so we can get an idea of how big that thing is.
Thats where Im left undecided, need scale comparison.
Im not trying to hack your head off Simon I just think your analysis needs to be more involved and complex otherwise its
just an opinion.

[Simon M]

Not really.
SImons analysis is kind of simple. He sees a figure walking on a hillside, he notes its very far off,
then discounts it as fake while lending enormous authority to his words.
Just not technical enough.
I see a uniformly dark bipedal figure walking slowly across a boulder strewn hillside.
I see heat haze in the image indicating the subject is over 1 kilometre away as the videographer states
"its zoomed all the way in". Has the camera nicely mounted to a tripod eliminating any wobble or need for stabilization.
I then note the need for a scale comparison as I stated in the YouTube video comments "you should go down there with
the camera running so we can get an idea of how big that thing is.
Thats where Im left undecided, need scale comparison.
Im not trying to hack your head off Simon I just think your analysis needs to be more involved and complex otherwise its
just an opinion.

You're correct about this much; everything I post is an opinion. All of it.

I've never once claimed to be a researcher; nor do I claim to have any professional or detailed knowledge of biomechanics, bush survival techniques, hunting and tracking, anatomy, anthropology, genetics, palaeobiology, primatology or zoology. All these topics are related to the Yowie debate and we all end up with a rough understanding of the basics of them - but I'm no expert. I have no field research experience at all. I do have a brain and the will to use it, though.

Until we see video of something which cannot possibly be faked I'll stick to my opinion; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Occam's Razor also applies -

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

In order for that video to be taken as 'evidence' of anything, context becomes important. We do not see anything other than an indistinct figure moving across a hillside from a distance. You yourself state this as well. We can all see what the video shows...and to call that video inconclusive would be charitable. There's no detail shown of the moving figure - none whatsoever - and no way of linking the watermelon and footprint images to the figure moving across the hillside. As I said originally, it could be real for all I know - but there's nothing in that video that would be impossible to fake, is there? If someone wanted to, they could easily have staged that entire series of events. So your assertion that...

He sees a figure walking on a hillside, he notes its very far off,then discounts it as fake while lending enormous authority to his words.

...is factually inaccurate. I state clearly after that that it could be real 'for all I know', then I state that I don't think it is real. You recognised this as an opinion, which it is. I never claimed otherwise. You also describe a figure walking at a distance, etc. Your choice of words may be different, but we're both saying the same thing. Anyone who reads our two posts can plainly see that.

It's the same with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Just because it's cannot be 100% proven to be fake doesn't mean it's definitely a Sasquatch. It's not an either/or situation nor is it a zero-sum game. Context, once more, becomes vital; we know Patterson was there scouting locations to make a movie about Bigfoot, we know he had connections to Hollywood, we also know he was very familiar with the Bigfoot mythos. Given that context, who'd be better qualified than him to create a convincing hoax? If Gimlin was also a victim of that hoax - brought there by Patterson and shown his costumed accomplice to add credibility to the story - then it just makes Patterson a master prankster and no more nor less than that. The simple fact is that we don't know if that's true. It may be true or it may not be true, and various people have used the same piece of evidence to argue a variety of different things...let's not forget the endless debate about whether or not the alleged Sasquatch is female or whether it's carrying something, etc. People claim all sorts of things about that film and none of it can be conclusively proven or discounted.

I'm not sure how you think I 'lent enormous authority' to what I said. I just described what I saw.

I see a uniformly dark bipedal figure walking slowly across a boulder strewn hillside.
I see heat haze in the image indicating the subject is over 1 kilometre away as the videographer states
"its zoomed all the way in". Has the camera nicely mounted to a tripod eliminating any wobble or need for stabilization.

Could you please point out where your description of what was shown significantly differs from mine? All I added was the observation that there was no detail, and no way of telling what/who the figure was. Just describing the camera mounting system and the approximate distance involved doesn't make your observations somehow more or less valid than mine - they're simply your own unique observations. Nor does using the word 'bipedal' make your description somehow more scientifically accurate. True, I didn't mention the boulders, so you've got me there. Using terminology such as 'bipedal' or 'videographer' doesn't make you more correct or incorrect, either. The video shows what it shows, and what it shows is open to interpretation...or, if you prefer, it's a matter of opinion.

How do we know for certain that the camera was 'zoomed all the way in'? How do we know he - the videographer - wasn't lying, or that he got the distance wrong? The answer is that we cannot know these things. You're making a lot of assumptions for someone who's claiming to strive for accuracy.

If what you're saying is that I didn't use technical language, then fair enough (but we both know that isn't what you tried to imply). I used plain English. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a researcher. I'd use the term 'camerman' (sexist, I know, but there you have it) rather than 'videographer' so maybe I'm not verbose enough or whatever...but I also wouldn't assume everything someone says in a YouTube video is necessarily the undiluted truth. We all know this is an area which attracts fraudsters like ants to a picnic, so we can't afford to assume anything.

How do you actually know the 'heat haze' verifies what the 'videographer' says? What sort of camera did he have? What sort of lens? What led you to agree with his assertion?

None of us know that for sure. We only know what that guy - the videographer - tells us. He tells us whatever he wants to.

So any analysis of that video is just an opinion about someone's unprovable assertion on YouTube.

[Black]

The devil isn't in the Patterson bigfoot film, it's in the Patterson bigfoot footprints.

If the footprints are faked, so is the film.

There is a 3d computer analysis of all this film and footprint data, yes? If not, who's working on one?

[Simon M]

I'd never seen or heard of this digital analysis before you mentioned it Black. I'd like to see it, though.

If it exists, it might help - but as you said earlier, we cannot be sure the casts you mentioned are legit because there's no footage of them being made, etc.

If we can be 100% sure the casts you mentioned were made at the same location and at the same time the film was shot then we're in business.

I really think most people have just taken a side and are defending it at this point.

I'm not convinced the Patterson/Gimlin film is fair dinkum. That is, as others have pointed out, simply an opinion. My reasons for this are the basic ones, Occam's Razor and the like, and I think it would be hard to convince anyone who's decided the film is real that they're incorrect.

[Black]

Simon, what I mean is, the Patterson bigfoot film is the recording of a bipedal figure walking a path on the ground or creek bed. It is not possible from the footage to determine whether patty was stepping on mud or rocks, or hard ground, or leaves and twigs or branches, or even if patty left tracks.

Patterson purports the line of bigfoot tracks he later cast, were in creek bes mud where patty walked, in the film he shot. Let's be honest, that's an incredibly fortunate outcome, isnt it?

I think the Munns report may have already done this sort of analysis.

My point is, yes, the later footprint tracks and casts, could easily have been faked, but it should be possible to marry up both films where tape measures were used to measure prints, distances between prints, print placements, to see if it is viable and reasonable the figure in the footage unwittingly created them, or if it is not possible the figure made those prints.

There is heaps of photographic data to go by, because when the footage broke, news crews, film crews, and amateur photographers, descended on the area.

**** I'm not aware of any other bigfoot case in history where the figure in the film leaves a clear trail of footprints behind in perfectly positioned mud, for later casting.

There is no reason this controversy should still be enduring, with all the data available to this event.

[Simon M]

Ah, I see what you mean now, Black. Good point. Thanks for explaining.

I think the reason it's endured is because of people's inability to be objective about it. The film elicits an emotional response from people and they either want it to be real (and so defend it) or decide it cannot be real (and attack it). If it's a fake it's the best one ever produced, and if it's real then it's remarkable. There are too many unanswered questions attached to it for my liking, and I still don't see how it couldn't have been faked.

I understand the Planet of the Apes argument - that it was a big budget production and they still just had people in funny shoes, rubber masks and wigs that didn't look like actual apes - but that doesn't make a potential 'Patty' suit impossible. Just because it wasn't something that was mainstream doesn't make it physically or technically impossible. Just think of the fat-suit Eddie Murphy wore in the Nutty Professor movies; if a special effects technician used a similar technique in 1967 it'd easily explain the 'bounce' we see in the P/G film's subject. 1967 wasn't 1996, I know, but the technique wasn't new even when it was used by Eddie Murphy. I found this and it interested me...

https://propstoreauction.com/view-aucti ... 6-Fat-Suit

The thing that has always mystified me is that the suit itself has never come to light, as you'd think whoever made it would want credit for it. Also, whenever someone re-enacts that film, the suit always looks dodgy and nothing like the figure in the actual P/G film.

Of course, all this is just my opinion. We'll never know for sure until someone either recreates the footage precisely, produces the original suit, or we see video of an actual Sasquatch for comparison purposes.

[ripperton]

Could you please point out where your description of what was shown significantly differs from mine

It doesnt !
But you missed the follow on. (Proof of scale)
Youre not letting the trail of rationale and reasoning run to its full end.
Theres a system of analysis that we all have to adhere to. If not, we dont get the right answer.

[Simon M]

Could you please point out where your description of what was shown significantly differs from mine

It doesnt !
But you missed the follow on. (Proof of scale)
Youre not letting the trail of rationale and reasoning run to its full end.
Theres a system of analysis that we all have to adhere to. If not, we dont get the right answer.

What did you prove? What system of analysis are you using? We don't know the precise distances involved and the presence of heat haze doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that it was a hot day. We don't know anything about the size of the boulders or the relative height of the figure moving across the hillside, either.

What's the 'right' answer here according to you?

[inthedark]

The thing that has always mystified me is that the suit itself has never come to light, as you'd think whoever made it would want credit for it. Also, whenever someone re-enacts that film, the suit always looks dodgy and nothing like the figure in the actual P/G film.

Was probably destroyed to protect the 'product'. Or rather, to obviate any interruption to the expected income stream.

As for why no one has made a comparable replica, that's a no-brainer. How many have tried? And how (in heck) do we know that the one or two who did, were not avid PGF believers, determined to 'prove' that it couldn't be replicated? I'd bet my last dollar that not a single bonafide skeptic has attempted to produce a replica. I think it's safe to assume that if a skeptic did so, we would see a pretty good match for Patty, at least in terms of detail and refinement. Any differences would be aesthetic only.

[Simon M]

Was probably destroyed to protect the 'product'. Or rather, to obviate any interruption to the expected income stream.

As for why no one has made a comparable replica, that's a no-brainer. How many have tried? And how (in heck) do we know that the one or two who did, were not avid PGF believers, determined to 'prove' that it couldn't be replicated? I'd bet my last dollar that not a single bonafide skeptic has attempted to produce a replica. I think it's safe to assume that if a skeptic did so, we would see a pretty good match for Patty, at least in terms of detail and refinement. Any differences would be aesthetic only.

Possibly, but that's all still supposition. You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but none of what you've said can be proven or disproven.

It might be 'safe to assume' a variety of things, but assumptions aren't facts. Bob Heironimus was clearly a fraudster himself and his claims can't be taken seriously (in my opinion).

It's a fact, though, that there's never been a re-creation made that resembles the original film to any significant degree. I think this is part of its continuing mystique. if it could be replicated it would lose its status instantly.

If there were someone willing to spend the money on making such a suit, there'd be someone who'd want to accept the challenge just to advertise their own expertise (and make some money); we have no way of knowing how many sceptics may or may not have tried to replicate that footage.

As I've said, I don't know what we're seeing in that film. I wouldn't put money on either opinion - I don't know if it was real or if it was faked. It's either a brilliant fake or it's the real thing, but this will always be disputed due to a lack of corroborating evidence and the personal bias of each observer.

[inthedark]

Was probably destroyed to protect the 'product'. Or rather, to obviate any interruption to the expected income stream.

As for why no one has made a comparable replica, that's a no-brainer. How many have tried? And how (in heck) do we know that the one or two who did, were not avid PGF believers, determined to 'prove' that it couldn't be replicated? I'd bet my last dollar that not a single bonafide skeptic has attempted to produce a replica. I think it's safe to assume that if a skeptic did so, we would see a pretty good match for Patty, at least in terms of detail and refinement. Any differences would be aesthetic only.

Possibly, but that's all still supposition. You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but none of what you've said can be proven or disproven.

It might be 'safe to assume' a variety of things, but assumptions aren't facts. Bob Heironimus was clearly a fraudster himself and his claims can't be taken seriously (in my opinion).

It's a fact, though, that there's never been a re-creation made that resembles the original film to any significant degree. I think this is part of its continuing mystique. if it could be replicated it would lose its status instantly.

If there were someone willing to spend the money on making such a suit, there'd be someone who'd want to accept the challenge just to advertise their own expertise (and make some money); we have no way of knowing how many sceptics may or may not have tried to replicate that footage.

As I've said, I don't know what we're seeing in that film. I wouldn't put money on either opinion - I don't know if it was real or if it was faked. It's either a brilliant fake or it's the real thing, but this will always be disputed due to a lack of corroborating evidence and the personal bias of each observer.

The issue is that skeptics are self-obviating. What I mean is, they're the last people who'd actually put time and money into constructing a replica ... since they ARE skeptics. They have no interest in 'proving a negative', as it were. The only people who will be inclined to invest in it are those with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth .. which instantly makes the whole replica thing deeply problematic. From a scientific or legal perspective, it's an 'instant dismissal'. Such people cannot be trusted (at ALL) to carry out such tests with anything like objectivity.

Which leaves us with the perpetual problem of non-falsifiable 'evidence', and as you say - mere opinion. My own is that the likelihood of it being real is very remote, given the KNOWN factors (the people and circumstances). No secret that I also see the 'creature' as very obviously human in terms of movement etc. Plus, I feel the face/head is poorly done - probably reflecting the limits of the knowledge and skill of the suit maker. There was clearly an attempt to make it look something like a 'human gorilla', but it was lost in translation on the face/head.

[Yowie bait]

Was probably destroyed to protect the 'product'. Or rather, to obviate any interruption to the expected income stream.

As for why no one has made a comparable replica, that's a no-brainer. How many have tried? And how (in heck) do we know that the one or two who did, were not avid PGF believers, determined to 'prove' that it couldn't be replicated? I'd bet my last dollar that not a single bonafide skeptic has attempted to produce a replica. I think it's safe to assume that if a skeptic did so, we would see a pretty good match for Patty, at least in terms of detail and refinement. Any differences would be aesthetic only.

Possibly, but that's all still supposition. You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but none of what you've said can be proven or disproven.

It might be 'safe to assume' a variety of things, but assumptions aren't facts. Bob Heironimus was clearly a fraudster himself and his claims can't be taken seriously (in my opinion).

It's a fact, though, that there's never been a re-creation made that resembles the original film to any significant degree. I think this is part of its continuing mystique. if it could be replicated it would lose its status instantly.

If there were someone willing to spend the money on making such a suit, there'd be someone who'd want to accept the challenge just to advertise their own expertise (and make some money); we have no way of knowing how many sceptics may or may not have tried to replicate that footage.

As I've said, I don't know what we're seeing in that film. I wouldn't put money on either opinion - I don't know if it was real or if it was faked. It's either a brilliant fake or it's the real thing, but this will always be disputed due to a lack of corroborating evidence and the personal bias of each observer.

The issue is that skeptics are self-obviating. What I mean is, they're the last people who'd actually put time and money into constructing a replica ... since they ARE skeptics. They have no interest in 'proving a negative', as it were. The only people who will be inclined to invest in it are those with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth .. which instantly makes the whole replica thing deeply problematic. From a scientific or legal perspective, it's an 'instant dismissal'. Such people cannot be trusted (at ALL) to carry out such tests with anything like objectivity.

Which leaves us with the perpetual problem of non-falsifiable 'evidence', and as you say - mere opinion. My own is that the likelihood of it being real is very remote, given the KNOWN factors (the people and circumstances). No secret that I also see the 'creature' as very obviously human in terms of movement etc. Plus, I feel the face/head is poorly done - probably reflecting the limits of the knowledge and skill of the suit maker. There was clearly an attempt to make it look something like a 'human gorilla', but it was lost in translation on the face/head.

Unless you are trying to prove existence then it doesn't matter what Skeptics say as anyone that has had the experience knows that skeptics are wrong.

These researchers using hominid types to prove their point unfortunately shoot themselves in the foot when they include patty as proof in their theories and articles imo as it seems most academics consider it a joke.

Its the academics that ARE convinced by the footage that sway me to not discount it.

Its fun to watch and wonder but we will never know for sure.

[Simon M]

The issue is that skeptics are self-obviating. What I mean is, they're the last people who'd actually put time and money into constructing a replica ... since they ARE skeptics. They have no interest in 'proving a negative', as it were. The only people who will be inclined to invest in it are those with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth .. which instantly makes the whole replica thing deeply problematic. From a scientific or legal perspective, it's an 'instant dismissal'. Such people cannot be trusted (at ALL) to carry out such tests with anything like objectivity.

Which leaves us with the perpetual problem of non-falsifiable 'evidence', and as you say - mere opinion. My own is that the likelihood of it being real is very remote, given the KNOWN factors (the people and circumstances). No secret that I also see the 'creature' as very obviously human in terms of movement etc. Plus, I feel the face/head is poorly done - probably reflecting the limits of the knowledge and skill of the suit maker. There was clearly an attempt to make it look something like a 'human gorilla', but it was lost in translation on the face/head.

I see what you mean. I don't disagree with your logic at all. There are actual scientists who vouch for the film's authenticity, and others who dismiss it as a hoax. Both groups can point to aspects of the film that they say supports their viewpoint. It's not something that can be resolved without more evidence coming to light.

If it was a suit then no-one's ever made one exactly like it ever again. That's about all I can that's factual.

[themanfromglad]

One clue that that the Patterson Gimlin film is authentic, is that the right front foot can be seen, just before it is placed on the crowd. And toes are turned up so that they are not stubbed on the forward swing of the leg. Humans can't do this because it is impossible for them.

[Black]

Unless the human is wearing rubber feet shoes, that is. You know, about the size of a "bigfoot"......

[Simon M]

As I've already said, there's always going to be to-and-fro regarding this film because everyone will use different aspects of it to support their particular viewpoint. That's been the case since it first became public and it hasn't changed.

The feet may or may not be rubber. It may or may not be a person in a suit.

Taken on its own, without additional evidence that can be reliably associated with the film, it's simply a matter of opinion. None of us can be sure of exactly what it shows, but we all have opinions about what it shows.

[themanfromglad]

One little unadvertised detail that reveals that Heironimus is a liar, is in frame 352, where the Bigfoot looks back at either Roger or Bob. The Bigfoot appears to be looking at the camera. All would likely agree that the look back was just enough for a subject with 2 good eyes, to get a visual of what was happening with primarily their right eye. With the left eye being mostly blocked by the bridge of the nose. Well as was inadvertently revealed in the book, "The Making of Bigfoot" by Greg Long, Bob Heironimus was totally blind in his right eye because he had a glass eye ball stuffed into his right eye socket. Thus, proving that Bob Heironimus was not inside of any Bigfoot suit, for the filming of the Patterson Gimlin film.

[Black]

How do you know Bob wasn't looking at the camera over his nose with his left eye? You can see his left eye in that famous shot, and it's looking directly at the camera also. It may also explain why the figure turned its head so much, instead of looking at the camera with the peripheral only of the right eye.

Could still be good ol Bob in there....

[themanfromglad]

Another tidbit that tends to prove that the Patterson Gimlin film is authentic, is that in the summer of 1968, the Smithsonian had the film on display in an endless loop for about 2 months. I was looking at it when the museum attendant came by and said to me that, "They are supposed to be people. The government wants the video to be taken down because they are supposed to be top secret". Since the Smithsonian doesn't put on display hoaxes, the Patterson Gimlin film would be authentic based on them putting it on display.

[Yowie bait]

Heres yet another Patty breakdown from Thinker Thunker. Maybe this will help clear things up...



https://youtu.be/boGedzlUqog

[Simon M]

Thinker Thunker raises some interesting points. I think that the impression of the figure outrunning the cameraman could've been simulated if the whole thing were carefully timed and/or choreographed.

On stage and in movies or on TV actors 'block out' their movements to coincide with certain dialogue during a performance so that everyone knows where everyone else is supposed to be in relation to each other within a confined space (such as when scenes are being shot in a room or a set designed to look like one). This is done not only to create the illusion of reality but to avoid actors physically crashing into each other (or parts of the set). It also means cameras can be correctly positioned for whatever shots are required, and actors aren't standing too close or far away from each other. Very little is left to chance is what I'm saying.

Playing 'Mr. Sceptic' here, I'd suggest it's possible for the effect Thinker Thunker's describing to have been choreographed. Patterson was a rodeo rider and presumably understood a good deal about the behaviour of horses, and he definitely knew how to use his camera. If his alleged collaborator (in the alleged suit) had worked out the when and where of it all in advance, and when he'd stop running and start again (and without sound we don't know if verbal cues were being shouted out by Patterson), then it's possible he could've created the illusion of being outrun by the figure in the film. If there was a verbal cue Patterson used to make the horses seem to rear spontaneously then we'd also never know that, either.

The mention of the zoom lens is also interesting - this may have aided Patterson in creating the impression of great distance being covered very quickly by the film's subject. They may not have had CGI then but there are many subtle yet effective camera tricks which have been used since the silent film era that weren't exactly top secret. If he'd calculated exactly where he needed to be in order to create the impression he wanted - and he used the zoom lens into the bargain - then it's possible that the whole thing was cleverly choreographed to look as if it had happened without warning and that the figure he was filming was moving extremely quickly in relation to the camera.

There's no evidence whatsoever for this claim - it's just a possibility that Thinker Thunker's video suggested to me. The enigmatic thing about this film is that every argument about it you can come up with also seems to naturally lead to an equal-yet-opposite counter argument. The film is ambiguous enough to fire up debate but also to leave the viewer wondering just what they've really seen.

Also, if it were on display at the Smithsonian, that does lend it a certain amount of credibility. The film is an unsolvable riddle. Without supplementary evidence, taken just on its own, it raises questions which don't yield any clear answers.

[themanfromglad]

Patty's height was scaled at 7'-4" based on a stick that was kicked up by her, and later found and measured. Heironimus is over a foot shorter making it impossible for him to be in the suit.

[Searcher]

Simon M wrote:

The mention of the zoom lens is also interesting - this may have aided Patterson in creating the impression of great distance being covered very quickly by the film's subject. They may not have had CGI then but there are many subtle yet effective camera tricks which have been used since the silent film era that weren't exactly top secret. If he'd calculated exactly where he needed to be in order to create the impression he wanted - and he used the zoom lens into the bargain - then it's possible that the whole thing was cleverly choreographed to look as if it had happened without warning and that the figure he was filming was moving extremely quickly in relation to the camera

Yes, the mention of a zoom lens is quite interesting as the Kodak K-100 camera that shot this famous sequence does not come with a zoom. It’s either a fixed lens or a turret mount. Yes, it is possible to adapt a C Mount zoom lens to this camera but that makes it very difficult to use as the K-100 relies on a small separate fixed viewfinder which, of course, doesn’t zoom with the lens! It is highly unlikely that Roger Patterson’s rented camera had a zoom.

I know these old 16mm K-100 cameras very well and still have a fixed lens version that is in mint condition. Perhaps Thinker Thunker should do a little more homework.