Yowiehunters Forum

Wow scarts

I have always been a bit suspect on the Patterson video. The yowie has a big but, but no crack is visible. You would expect a two legged animal would have gluteus muscles especially with large thighs like in the video.

Sucks it was fake. That footage got me interested in paranormal stuff when I was a kid.

Love the work those boys do though. Would be an awesome job making costumes like that but not for hoaxes


Regards Mark

G’day Mark,

I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on what was said in that short but entertaining promotional video on costume making. Our man clearly stated “ I do not believe in Bigfoot at all”. By saying that he is totally dismissing the many 1000’s of Bigfoot sightings, some right up close, over the past couple of hundred years in the Americas. Common sense says it is quite wrong to do this. People really are seeing something!

As for the Patterson film, no proof was offered in the video to back up the dubious assertions that were made. These claims are nothing new… we’ve heard them all before. How about some one producing and displaying the actual suit that supposed to be worn? Now that would be something…:D

I suggest you look and listen to some of Bob Gimlin’s interviews before dismissing this footage completely. Just Google to find them. Also, technical advances in recent years have allowed sophisticated video analysis of muscle movement that effectively rules out the man in a suit hypothesis.

It’s all there for you to investigate at your leisure, including a number of links already on this site. In the meantime, I’m going to try to keep an open mind. However, after viewing this new research, I am leaning slightly towards accepting the Patterson film as good evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.

Firstly, I was disappointed the costume makers didn't try to build a replica patterson bigfoot costume. If the company's works are of the highest quality and grade for Hollywood standards, I don't see why they wouldn't. That would have been far more appropriate, instead of building on a gorilla skull????. Secondly, the costume they built, in my opinion, looks dreadfully fake! I know it was just for the stage presentations, but still, a guy dressed up looking exactly like the Patterson bigfoot would have really sold the story they were peddling. I found that very disappointing!

This raises a few questions in itself.
If the Patterson footage is of a guy in a costume back in 1967, why does a 2012 bigfoot costume look so much more fake than Patterson's? If the same technicolour grainy film were used to film the 2012 costume at a distance, could it look as authentic as the Patterson footage? If the figure in the Patterson footage were a lot closer to the camera and had been filmed in 2014 HD video, would it look so much more fake?
The fact of the matter is the quality of the video camera, the frames per second, the position and strength of the lighting, and the distance of the figure or object from the camera lens, can make a massive difference in discerning what was being filmed. Hence, 45+ years later, with everything filmed at the low end of optimal, the Patterson film debate continues.

Hi searcher
I watched some interviews with Bob
The man seams to be telling the truth, very relaxed about the incident. I shall seek more stuff.

Ello scarts
Yes you would think that the suit they used in the Patterson movie would be produced for proof. I would think that the amount of effort to hoax something as huge as that they would have kept it hidden somewhere.

And your right they should have made the suit identical to the movie so it shows you can fake it.

Why do people keep trying to prove that yowie and big foot are fake.

Kind regards Mark

Hi Tex. That’s also my view on Bob Gimlin. I’ve said before, if P/G wanted to perpetrate a hoax, they would probably have shot the footage on 8mm to potentially mask any errors. 16mm film can have a resolution of up to 2k making it better or at least as good as HD video. I have the same model camera that was used to shoot the Patterson-Gimlin film. (see pic below, but ignore the Agfa box)

It gives amazing quality and was often used professionally to shoot TV commercials. It has a 40 foot wind up mechanism which means that you could hold a continuous shot for a full minute. Most movie cameras could only run for less than half that time. The camera records at 24 frames per second and footage can be scanned into a telecine system at 25 fps. The 16mm format was the choice for TV news gathering and used to broadcast all TV film programs and movies for many years.

The latest 4k video systems are now very good. Things just keep getting better and better… Apple have just released a 5k screen on the new iMacs. Wow…can’t wait to get one. Also can’t wait for some 4k Yowie footage to emerge that will be even better than the classic 1967 Patterson-Gimlin footage!

I've just finished "When Roger met Patty" written by William Munns (a long time professional Creature and Makeup Effects Designer who has been working in Hollywood since the 70's) who examines the Patterson Gimlin film in a painstaking and methodical approach, drawing from his extensive experience in the field of special effects and costumes, and delivers perhaps the most in-depth analysis on the PG film. Without going into the explanations of his findings when outlining costume design (a lengthy number of chapters that made my head spin), he convincingly states there was no costume out there in the 60's that could have pulled off that footage.

He explores other fascinating details pertaining to the film, such as Patterson and Gimlin's personal background, what they were doing prior to the filming, the type of film used and facts pertaining it (75% of 100 foot reel prior to the 'event' showed them on horseback through the mountains in days prior, and the film runs out just as the 'bigfoot' is walking away [and we're talking about a Keystone K-50 camera with reel that can't "record & delete" video like we can these days!] and other quite reasonable theories showing the film is can't be a fake.

Interesting read by an author qualified to comment.

Hi B.R. Good to see we’re on the same page here! Just one correction though…the camera used by Roger Patterson was a rented standard Cine Kodak K-100 16mm. (Not a keystone K-50). It is the same as my K-100 shown in the above photo. It takes a 100’ spool which runs around 2’.40” at 24 fps and of course more if the camera was set at 16 fps which was often used to save expensive film stock and processing. The quality was still good at 16fps although a slight flicker was noticeable on projection. Patterson was using Kodachrome 11 film. There is some doubt raised by Munns as to whether the standard 25mm lens was used or a wider angle 15 mm lens.

Interesting that the first part of the film shows them on horseback through the mountains on days prior. Exactly what you would expect if the film is genuine. If you were going to set up a hoax, you would probably start with a fresh spool and do lots of takes and not, as happened here, start on the tail of a roll and run out of film at the end.

I have read some of the Munns Report. It can be viewed at: http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_003.htm

To view the Munns Report, it's probably best to start at the Home Page or First Time Visitors page; http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_v2_design_002.htm
Lots of interesting stuff!

Searcher wrote:Hi B.R. Good to see we’re on the same page here! Just one correction though…the camera used by Roger Patterson was a rented standard Cine Kodak K-100 16mm. (Not a keystone K-50). It is the same as my K-100 shown in the above photo. It takes a 100’ spool which runs around 2’.40” at 24 fps and of course more if the camera was set at 16 fps which was often used to save expensive film stock and processing. The quality was still good at 16fps although a slight flicker was noticeable on projection. Patterson was using Kodachrome 11 film. There is some doubt raised by Munns as to whether the standard 25mm lens was used or a wider angle 15 mm lens.

Interesting that the first part of the film shows them on horseback through the mountains on days prior. Exactly what you would expect if the film is genuine. If you were going to set up a hoax, you would probably start with a fresh spool and do lots of takes and not, as happened here, start on the tail of a roll and run out of film at the end.

I have read some of the Munns Report. It can be viewed at: http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_003.htm

Ah yes you are right. It was the lens that was a point of question.

If it's a guy in a costume, it's a stretch to believe they threw ol Bob Heronimus into the suit, told him to start walking, and got the shot of the day with no rehearsals, equipped with just the right camera shake and the works, the first time. If it was a hoax, they must have rehearsed the motions of what they wanted a few times, and then filmed away and crossed their fingers they got it right. There was no room for Heronimus to trip over or walk into a tree, forget to do the zipper all the way up, or for the costume to catch on a branch and tear part of the suit off, or for Bob to suffer heat exhaustion from being in the suit too long and fall over, or for the black grease make-up around his eyes to run, or for a bug to get into his eye, requring him to use a finger to get it out, or that would have been three days of filming down the gurgler! Things can go wrong! On live TV it happens all the time, and when getting a shot right for a movie, it can take many takes. The other issue if it is a fake, it wasn't just a visual fake. The costume was equipped with big feet that presumably made the footprints that were later cast, as it walked. So if it was a hoax, it was a hoax occurring on two playing fields at the same time on camera. That's an impressive hoax!

I have a replica plaster cast of one of the Patterson Bigfoot footprints. I must say, it's a very, very flat-footed, big foot!

Whether this film is real or hoax, has been hotly debated for decades by people more knowledgeable than us on the matter. It is possibly THE most controversial film ever taken. There have been many debates, and many, many interesting interviews. There is a gold mine of reasons to believe or not believe in that footage. For those of you who would like to find out more, below is a great live debate and also a snippet of an interview between Bob Heronimus, Phil Morris, and the host, Tom Biscardi (Before he was disgraced) Of note, the debaters both started out as strong advocates of the film, as did Tom Biscardi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PAyU9u6Fow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBEyi1SzFn8

I know how they feel because I started out as a strong believer in the film.

Hi searcher
I agree cameras today are getting so good but I think some of the old lenses are better, it's the film that let's you down. Gets grainy. It is exciting to see gadgets like cameras etc get so good. It wasn't that long ago that a 5 megapixel camera was the top of the line.

I think our biggest problem with good footage is by the time our brain registers a subject and our brain over comes the initial shock of seeing something like a yowie it's gone before we can raise the camera and start recording. Hopefully in the not so distant future we will have cameras that are so quick at starting to record that we will get better footage.

Hope it's one of us that gets the footage.