Yowiehunters Forum

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

ROFLMAO!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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 . . .

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!"

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...

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

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.

There are 2 different Bob "Bigfoot" Heironimus Lie Detector videos on youtube which both proclaim Bob to be "tellin the truth"
But the problem with both of these shows is the results are not read out by the person who carried out the test.
They are read out by some flossy big mouthed show pony game show presenter.
The person who did the test was probly told to go home and keep his mouth shut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xha5d_Fc7jg

Bob Hairymouse and his costume-maker mate are the only hoaxers in this story.

They saw an excellent opportunity to make some money doing speaking tours and attracting attention to the costume business. They failed miserably at re-creating the footage with Hairymous in a suit.

BTW, Joseph, you still think it was a hoax? Or have you changed your mind since this thread started?

Sasgirl wrote: 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.

A group of locals sitting on their front porches stating their opinions isn't a refutation of the film itself or the film as a potential piece of evidence. Everyone has an opinion about this film, including me, but that has no bearing on what the film itself actually shows.

As for why the two guys had a camera, they were scouting locations for their movie about (you guessed it) Bigfoot. Patterson had been interested in the topic for years. There'd been sightings in that area before, and some very recently, a fact Patterson was well aware of.

Not that this means the film is 100% beyond reproach. It could still be fake. I just don't believe that guy who says he wore the suit, because he comes across as a con artist. All the people in that trailer reminded me of bad actors from any given reality TV show.

The other thing that interests me about the Patterson/Gimlin footage is that I've never seen a completely accurate recreation of it. People often 're-enact' the scene with some big bloke in a hairy suit doing 'the walk' and so on...but it never looks the same. It always looks like a big guy in a furry, floppy suit. I've yet to see anyone accurately re-create the weird details of the original film.

Since the links above seem to be dead, I'm embedding some stabilised versions of the film here.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrj9GsngUc[/media]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MICxS6kEzUA[/media]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caZcbCcbwtc[/media]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyVMwmrofyE[/media]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnb6x1liL4I[/media]

Searcher wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:00 am

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...

Unless too much subsequent 'research' has relied on it.

I absolutely believe it's fake (heck, the gluts don't even move when 'she' walks .. dead giveaway), and therefore terribly misleading.

inthedark wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:08 pm the gluts don't even move when 'she' walks

They DO move.
The shift from side to side.
They are not supposed to jiggle.

ripperton wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:51 pm

inthedark wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:08 pm the gluts don't even move when 'she' walks

They DO move.
The shift from side to side.
They are not supposed to jiggle.

inthedark basically is choosing to not see what he doesn't want to see . . .
William Munns' "When Roger Met Patty" is the go-to book to prove it's all very real.

ripperton wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:51 pm

inthedark wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:08 pm the gluts don't even move when 'she' walks

They DO move.
The shift from side to side.
They are not supposed to jiggle.

That's the problem, they WOULD shift from side to side in costume. In a living 'ape', they should be moving up and down .. and they don't.

gregvalentine wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:31 pm [
inthedark basically is choosing to not see what he doesn't want to see . . .
William Munns' "When Roger Met Patty" is the go-to book to prove it's all very real.

First, I'm not a 'he'

And on the contrary, there are film captures which I suspect may be real, but the PGF isn't one of them. I simply find it (PGF) almost laughably bad. The creature is absurdly chunky and unathletic, none of the bulbous areas move (breasts, gluts), the head/face is terrible, and the walk is extremely human.

Consequently, it's frustrating to see so many 'researchers' and others rely upon it for the BF info or 'rules'. There are MUCH better candidates for benchmarking, IMO - though until these same are proven or disproven, they can't be considered definitive either.

There's no way of comprehensively saying that the film is or isn't the real deal. The film is what it is, and we all interpret it as we choose to.

I'm intrigued by this film because I've never seen an exact recreation of it, and no one's ever produced the actual suit - either one of which would convince me that it's a fake. For me, it's still an open question.

We don't know enough about the anatomy of these things to say it moves the wrong way, in my opinion - even if they're bipedal, it doesn't mean their skeletal or muscular structure is identical to our own. The one in the film might be elderly, or injured, or arthritic, and have a funny walk (for example). How hairy are they, and does their hair obscure the visible movement of certain muscles? Is their hair thicker on certain parts of their bodies than it is on other parts? We don't know any of this. We often assume they're apes of some kind...but we don't know that for sure, either.

People read into it whatever they want to - like any other text or film that exists, it's open to many different interpretations.

I've yet to see any alleged Bigfoot images and films that I'd swear were 100% real. I have doubts about literally every one of them I've ever seen. There are some videos that seem more convincing to me than others, but even those could be fakes for all I know.

I'm a fan of the Patterson/Gimlin footage, but everything we think we know is third-hand information (at best). I've watched that film hundreds of times and I'm none the wiser, to be honest. It's interesting and compelling but I don't know if it's really what it seems to be. I'll probably never know.

inthedark wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:40 pm

gregvalentine wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:31 pm [
inthedark basically is choosing to not see what he doesn't want to see . . .
William Munns' "When Roger Met Patty" is the go-to book to prove it's all very real.

First, I'm not a 'he'

And on the contrary, there are film captures which I suspect may be real, but the PGF isn't one of them. I simply find it (PGF) almost laughably bad. The creature is absurdly chunky and unathletic, none of the bulbous areas move (breasts, gluts), the head/face is terrible, and the walk is extremely human.

Consequently, it's frustrating to see so many 'researchers' and others rely upon it for the BF info or 'rules'. There are MUCH better candidates for benchmarking, IMO - though until these same are proven or disproven, they can't be considered definitive either.

He, she or an it - whatever . . . and, oh dear, obviously one of those self-proclaimed "experts" who brook no disagreement . . .

inthedark wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:40 pm The creature is absurdly chunky and unathletic, and the walk is extremely human.

You've contradicted yourself there.
The human "walk" is very slick and loose. We put an enormous amount of language and attitude into our "walk".
Our joints move effortlessly and Patty's joints even more so in spite of her being twice as big as any human.
There is no way you could put any human in a suit and get them to show the kind of movement Patty has.
Patty also has a higher degree of natural multi tasking in her movement than no human could produce.
I love the way she looks back to find Patterson to see if hes still looking at her / filming her.
She scans as she rotates her head, looks past where he is, then rotates her head back a bit when she locates him,
fixates on him and stares right at him for a second then looks forward again and continues her walk.
Ive heard Patty was distracting Patterson away from her children and this look back was her making sure she
had his attention.

Here are interesting clips from those working in the special effects industry:


[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... AbAXZdx6t0[/media]


[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs[/media]


[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0[/media]

gregvalentine wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:48 pm
He, she or an it - whatever . . . and, oh dear, obviously one of those self-proclaimed "experts" who brook no disagreement . . .

I'm the least 'expert' on these boards, and possibly on earth. I'm VERY new to this, and have simply drawn my own conclusions on the many pieces of footage I've viewed. The PGF struck me immediately as terribly hokey, and the knowledge that those involved were specifically looking for BF just added to my belief that it was a hoax. Having said that, I did make the effort to study the footage more closely, and repeatedly, but found that doing so just consolidated my belief that it's a hoax.

Once again, there is footage out there which I'm far less certain about. As in, I'm not at all sure they're hoaxes. I'm a skeptic, but a skeptic who is open to accepting the existence of these creatures. I give most video 'evidence' a chance.

ripperton wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:15 am
You've contradicted yourself there.
The human "walk" is very slick and loose. We put an enormous amount of language and attitude into our "walk".
Our joints move effortlessly and Patty's joints even more so in spite of her being twice as big as any human.
There is no way you could put any human in a suit and get them to show the kind of movement Patty has.
Patty also has a higher degree of natural multi tasking in her movement than no human could produce.
I love the way she looks back to find Patterson to see if hes still looking at her / filming her.
She scans as she rotates her head, looks past where he is, then rotates her head back a bit when she locates him,
fixates on him and stares right at him for a second then looks forward again and continues her walk.
Ive heard Patty was distracting Patterson away from her children and this look back was her making sure she
had his attention.

No contradiction. The figure is very barrel like and 'chunky', which makes it appear heavy and ungainly. We generally associate an athletic build with the leanness of the runner, and Patty most definitely does not have that build. As for the human walk, it totally looks (to ME) like a man adjusting for the ungainly suit he's wearing, and who has perhaps added in a little extra for effect. That's the way I read it, every single time. When you compare Patty's movement to the movement of the Russian Almasty running (and leaping) past a father and son in open forest, there is a significant difference. I don't know what that Russian critter is, but it absolutely does not move in a 'human' way. If it's a guy in a suit, then he's a super athlete.

Hey in the dark. Im a believer, but really enjoy your posts from a skeptical point of view. You clearly think things through and majority of what you say has merit. As for patty i tend to agree with you but im trying to see it for what others see. Because a lot of good minds in this subject seem to be certain its legit. Anyway, fingers crossed you experience something someday because something tells me you'd be pretty handy on the "believers" side. Ill continue to read your replies with interest and urge you to keep researching. The scene needs people like yaself. Cheers.

inthedark wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:15 pm

ripperton wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:15 am
You've contradicted yourself there.
The human "walk" is very slick and loose. We put an enormous amount of language and attitude into our "walk".
Our joints move effortlessly and Patty's joints even more so in spite of her being twice as big as any human.
There is no way you could put any human in a suit and get them to show the kind of movement Patty has.
Patty also has a higher degree of natural multi tasking in her movement than no human could produce.
I love the way she looks back to find Patterson to see if hes still looking at her / filming her.
She scans as she rotates her head, looks past where he is, then rotates her head back a bit when she locates him,
fixates on him and stares right at him for a second then looks forward again and continues her walk.
Ive heard Patty was distracting Patterson away from her children and this look back was her making sure she
had his attention.

No contradiction. The figure is very barrel like and 'chunky', which makes it appear heavy and ungainly. We generally associate an athletic build with the leanness of the runner, and Patty most definitely does not have that build. As for the human walk, it totally looks (to ME) like a man adjusting for the ungainly suit he's wearing, and who has perhaps added in a little extra for effect. That's the way I read it, every single time. When you compare Patty's movement to the movement of the Russian Almasty running (and leaping) past a father and son in open forest, there is a significant difference. I don't know what that Russian critter is, but it absolutely does not move in a 'human' way. If it's a guy in a suit, then he's a super athlete.

.

inthedark wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:15 pm No contradiction. The figure is very barrel like and 'chunky', which makes it appear heavy and ungainly.

They are like us in the way we age.
We are athletic when we are young but chunky and podgy when we get old. She could be 150 years old or more.
Plus Patty may have had 10 kids by that time. You know what motherhood does to a womans body.
You cant just put them all into an "athlete" category.
Bill Munns presentation is amazing. The guy is brilliant. He spends 20 minutes just on breast wobble.
In the end its not just what the experts say. Its our ability to process what they say.
That means we have to have enough scope of understanding to get our heads around it.
Those of us that dont, go into denial, and see what they want to see.
When I see Patty walk, it hits me. WE ARE NOT ALONE.

ripperton wrote: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:26 am
They are like us in the way we age.
We are athletic when we are young but chunky and podgy when we get old. She could be 150 years old or more.
Plus Patty may have had 10 kids by that time. You know what motherhood does to a womans body.
You cant just put them all into an "athlete" category.
Bill Munns presentation is amazing. The guy is brilliant. He spends 20 minutes just on breast wobble.
In the end its not just what the experts say. Its our ability to process what they say.
That means we have to have enough scope of understanding to get our heads around it.
Those of us that dont, go into denial, and see what they want to see.
When I see Patty walk, it hits me. WE ARE NOT ALONE.

Well I'm not too sure about that. I'm past 50, a mother of three, and still weigh roughly what I weighed at age 16. Though I'm fitter and have more muscle tone than I did at 16. Depends very much upon your lifestyle, and I would submit that any 'primitive' type lifestyle absolutely obviates any kind of 'chunkiness'. I'm the weight and fitness I am because I work hard and walk a lot - not because I go to the gym, etc. I have a fairly 'primitive' lifestyle myself .. wood heating, vegetable growing, break-baking, etc. As for the boobies .. they never look round and solid, like Patty's, after a few breastfed kids. Her's look like
silicon implants.

I don't think it's denial, at least not on my part. Since there are other vids out there which have me virtually convinced, I'm clearly looking to dismiss everything I see. It either strikes me as fake, or it doesn't. PGF, to me, looks fake. Others don't.