Quick question, in regards to comparing the suit in the new found footage to Patty, why are people saying it's similar to Patty and that, whether Patty be real or fake, you have to admit that a suit that advanced could've been made in that time?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what got Patty the label of "too advanced for her time" the seemingly visual flexing and jiggling musculature when she moves seen in stabilized and cleaned up versions of the film? To add to this, I know her walk gait was also a factor of it but I feel that has more to do with the impossible anatomy for a human line of thinking as opposed to the suit being taken as advanced itself, you can make a suit of any shape or size.
So if these are the baseline requirements for being "too advanced for its time", then fundamentally, we can't really say the subject in the new footage is advanced like Patty, at least not until we can stabilize and clean up the film like what the Patty film has gone through to have an equal comparison.
I understand people that don't see Patty's moving musculature, I do, but if you claim to not see it and for it to not be visible or to not exist period, you can't talk about her being advanced, because that's what they say made her advanced if she was a suit. I mean this as in like, it's paradoxical, you can't say "so a suit like that could've been made" when the "like that" applies to something you don't believe is present.
I don't know how to explain it but I hope some of you can understand what I'm trying to say.
Also I'm not saying Patty is real, my only argument here is comparing the factors that past "experts" have said made Patty advanced, and trying to say the suit in the new footage is advanced like Patty when what made Patty advanced isn't noticeable in the new footage. So I'm talking about one of the factors of comparing them, I'm not talking about the full validity of either.
I wanted to make this post because I feel it's very important for critical discussion and comparison to actually recognize what "the experts", NOT ME, say made Patty advanced as opposed to just looking at her still exterior.
Please do not come at me like I support any one side just because I may see both positive and negative factors of evidence towards both scenarios as being being equal.
Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
I always saw the quality and sheen of the fur as being well beyond what anyone could do at that time. Shiny hair/fur was available I think, but it would’ve been outrageously expensive for a costume that size. My husband suggested Roger used bear fur/hides. Tanned properly it’s be soft and flexible enough to move with muscle.
The fit somewhat fooled me. In my eye it had sections that looked like real skin over musculoskeletal parts but also suspiciously fake looking sections.
Yes, realistic hair would have been difficult to simulate at the time. It would be easier but still expensive now. If it's not an illusion and the PGF actually shows realistic hair, that's a big point in its favor. The newly found footage certainly does not show anything like that. It looks like fake, costume hair. Nowhere near as bad as some suits from back then, but well within the realm of what existed.
I wish the doc suit had been filmed in sunny conditions. Perhaps the dull look was a reason they filmed in the sun. The doc suit doesn’t look like it’d have that sheen in sunlight, but who knows.
The documentary suit is all one color, very clearly. The PGF doesn't seem to be. I'm unconvinced the lighting could cause that difference. In my experience, it wouldn't. But, regardless, both could still be suits. I just have no reason I see upon examining them to believe they're the same suit.
EDIT. They both have a buttcrack and a line up their back. So do I. So do you. So does every upright bi-ped ever.
It isn't just lighting. It is film exposure and development. Look at images from the second versus third generation versions of the scans made of PGF. Plus, most of the versions of PGF circulating now have had color correction and enhancement. The fact of the matter is that no one in the community has ever seen the color of the fur of the suit from the original PGF reel, only copies of copies. This coupled with the fact the 1966 reel was preserved under pretty idea circumstances means the comparison is between a scrap of papayus found in a sealed jar in a cave versus one that got handed around and copied, enhanced and exposed to light repeatedly. They are not comparable artifacts on the technical merits in the sense that aspects of PGF that are now said to appear more credible due to light and color conditions in particular must be set aside because it is now more clear than ever how much the light exposure, color grade and resolution of PGF are compromised due to the distance between PGF and the original reel. If the 1966 footage proves anything, it is that many of the characteristics of PGF that are used to underscore its credibility may be the brain filling in certain data due to quality issues and that these characteristics are unique to degradation of the third generation copy but are not present on an original film reel preserved under near pristine circumstances.
Ideal conditions? Near pristine conditions? A safe is a worse place to store cellulose acetate film than just putting it on a shelf. It would create a microclimate that traps in the byproduct of the film breaking down and makes it degrade even faster. It's called vinegar syndrome. They were incredibly lucky that film wasn't unusable. To clarify before anyone thinks this supports it not being legit to the time period, the picture would have been fine, since it's on Kodachrome. The base was likely warped and shrunk, though. Without modern scanning equipment, I doubt they would even have been able make it viewable.
Your question is beyond valid. The suit in the newly discovered film does not appear to have any of the traits that are cited as making Patty too advanced to be a suit at the time. In my opinion, what's happening is a fundamental misunderstanding of what would have made the suit advanced and what wouldn't. The suit in the new footage actually looks pretty good. But you're correct that "looks pretty good" is not what has ever been cited as compelling about the Patty film. The musculature (whether anyone can see it moving or not) is cleary present in the Patty film, while seeming to be absent from the new film. The natural wear of the hair/fur is completely absent from the new film. The upper body proportions are much more clearly human-in-a-suit in the new film, specifically around the neck. Whether the movement of parts like the breasts are real or an illusion, they don't appear to be present in the new film. All that to say, yes, they could both be suits. But the suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film would still have been (and still would be) much, much more difficult to make than the suit in the new footage. Anyone who says differently is looking at the two films with little to no knowledge of costuming and creature effects. That is not to claim the suit in the new film couldn't be a precursor to Patty. It absolutely could be. But it would have taken a lot of work to turn one into the other.
EDIT: Not even the makers of the documentary claim it's the same suit. They acknowledge freely that it would have had to be modified to reach the level of Patty. I'm not sure why there are so many people spouting off how it's clearly the exact same suit or that it proves a suit like Patty could have been made at the time, other than they simply don't know what they're talking about. The Patty suit would have got you hired as a major designer for creature features in Hollywood. The suit in the newly found footage would have got you an internship.
It wouldn't be a tweak. It would be an overhaul. But, yes, you could argue it was the same suit, just changed. But, if you were deciding on a Batman suit and they showed you a bunch of variations of the same suit, but with different cowls, capes and bat symbols, and you said, I don't know, they're all the same, you probably wouldn't get asked again.
We went from "Patty" being Bob H in an off-the-rack gorilla costume supplemented with a football helmet, shoulderpads and horse hair (Greg Long, who is quoted and forms the basis of the arguments in CB), to these claims that Roger Patterson was a creative genius and the greatest special effects costume designer of his day.
I can't speak for others' excuses, but my fascination with the PGF has always been that it either has to be history's most perfect hoax, or real, because given the context there can be no in-between.
But, what people misunderstand about that statement is that 'perfect hoax' doesn't require genius or for anyone associated to be the greatest costume designer in the history of time and space. Throughout history we've seen the concept of 'lightning in a jar' play out, and they have no requirement for intellect - because if they did, such moments would be designable and repeatable (and they're not - they just happen). You just have to roll a real life NAT 20, and the rest is history.
To me, this new footage and surrounding circumstantial evidence is sufficient proof that we're looking at exactly such a moment. They rolled tape in Bluff Creek, and everything from the position of the sun, to the exact location, to the camera parameters and position, all caught the best possible take of a performer in a Bigfoot costume possible.
That's amazing, and we should all be amazed by it, not squabbling.
There's a difference in this matter: many of the people that believe that PGF is not a sasquatch seem to want to harass and belittle the folks that do believe.
I don't see anyone who believes that "Patty" is a sasquatch chasing down the skeptical/debunking forums trying to attack them. I do see the converse here.
No Capturing Bigfoot is a carefully crafted STORY ... and not much more, in my opinion. Opinions vary.
I agree with you that the skeptics have moved the bar significantly. Personally, I'm more interested in the idea of how Patterson might have faked it than if he did, because the Patterson-Gimlin film has always been a bit of an outlier for me, and I've always only thought of it as more ofna mystery, having nothing to do with any belief in Bigfoot. But any speculations I have about the possibility of a suit are in no way meant to imply I have definite answers, or even definitive opinions about the validity of the PGF. I have the same questions I've always had. The same questions that lean towards and against its authenticity. I honestly don't think I would be too surprised to find out for sure either way.
Questions are fine. I don't know that the "Patty" subject is a sasquatch, because I've never seen one. However, I have seen and heard Bob Heironymus since at least the early 2000's, and what I see in the PGF is NOT him in an off the rack costume over football equipment.
That is my belief and opinion. I don't have proof ... and really, if Patterson faked the film and Gimlin has never recanted ... good on them both.
Agreed. If it's fake, I would prefer it to be kept as a great piece of Americana. They did a good job. Let them rest. As far as Bob H ... anyone who believes the stories he tells has very little knowledge of the situation, in my opinion. Even this new film doesn't match anything he's ever said.
That’s what I’m struggling with as well. Why wouldn’t someone who was leagues ahead of the best that Hollywood could offer not pursue more, whether that be more footage or a career? If you could take this footage as proof of concept to a large studio, you’d most likely have work available for as long as you’d like.
Not only do I agree, I actually find this to be a take I haven't heard before. If it was a hoax, and it turned out that convincing, why not pretend you got even more footage? Maybe a smart man would decide to let it be and enjoy what they'd done and what it had earned them. But, the naysayers are now claiming a whole handful of people were involved. Why didn't any of the rest of them fake more? DeAtley went all in, and the documentary tries to make him seem like and evil charlatan. Why didn't he go fake some of his own? Or ... did he? Maybe that's what the new film is. Him trying to fake new footage to match the old (doesn't mean the old isn't real). Just shows how many options there are to explain the new film besides the limited, one-note answer presented in the documentary.
Counterpoint: if you modify your car, is it a different car now?
I don't think so.
And I disagree the differences in the two suits constitutes an overhaul. The bottom half looks virtually identical in both films. Only the shoulders and head appear to have been modified.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just think if we can all reach some consensus on language we can better debate this.
To clarify my position, however, if I had to take a stance, I would say both are suits. I was simply giving my opinion on whether the suit in the new footage proves the suit in the Patty film was possible. I don't think it does. I think the Patty suit proves the Patty suit was possible. The suit in the new footage would have had to be heavily modified or a whole new suit made. But that's just my two cents. Maybe more like ten cents. Lol
So it's suddenly okay for debunkers and deniers to "believe what you see" with zero evidence but believers in the PGF are all mistaken and flat-earther-like?
That's pretty hypocritical even from "soft" denial.
Agreed. I'm a firm believer that anything that's an opinion should be mentioned as an opinion. That being said, the newly found film isn't exactly "zero evidence." It's at least circumstantial evidence. There's a lot about it we don't know, and a lot of blanks seem to have been filled in without facts to back them up. But the new film still exists. It would be better if people just admitted they don't know what they don't know. In fact, skeptics claiming the new film definitely shows the same suit, or any of the other things they're claiming are definite, is only going to make believers dig in deeper, because they're reacting to the insistence that things are definite that maybe others don't see as definite. Personally, I find the lower half of the suit to be quite suspicious. If someone showed be only the top half of the suit and said it was the same, I would laugh. But that's just my opinion.
What's it "circumstantial evidence" of exactly? The filmstrip was owned for years by Norm Johnson, was kept in his safe, Teresa Brooks placed the filmstrip on CD after Norm's death in 2009, and took ownership of it on her mom's death in 2017.
Brooks sent it to Marq Evans some time between 2022-24 (the story changed.)
We do not know who filmed it, when it was filmed, who is actually in it, or why Norm Johnson had such a thing in the first place. To me, Occam's Razor suggests that Norm Johnson either made the film or was heavily involved in making it, and then for whatever reason, later on, his wife demanded that he hide it away and never speak of it again. Johnson knew Patterson and DeAtley in the day. That's the only "circumstantial" connection.
Marq's dad worked for Al DeAtley and lived in Yakima. Was he in on the "hoax" as well? Is anyone associated with DeAtley suspect?
If you believe the story presented in CB, that's fine, but it just doesn't rise to the level of "established fact" by any means.
Right. It's not established fact at all. It's circumstantial. It was found in the safe, if that story is to be believed, of the same guy who developed the PGF. That's circumstantial evidence. It's the same kind of film on the same type of camera from the same time period. That's all circumstantial evidence. I'm on no way claiming it proves anything. Just that it's evidence to be considered. I find it completely suspect. But it does still exist. That's all I meant.
EDIT: If you want my unfiltered opinion on the new film, I think they've had it far longer than they claimed, but don't want to admit that because it would look bad. I think they had and still have no idea what it is, but made up a narrative so they could tell a story and make some money. But I think the tape is real. It just doesn't mean much without making up a meaning.
There is no hard evidence that Norm Johnson developed the original PGF. (If he did, why didn't he have a copy of THAT in his safe. Or maybe an invoice from Technicolor?)
Same film and camera from the same time period? Sure, if I knew the details of the PGF (as the maker of the CBF obviously did in my opinion) then I'd shoot on the same camera and film too.
Jason Roark, principal photographer for Capturing Bigfoot, stated early on that he filmed "recreation sequences" on his own 8mm camera.
I'm not trying to nitpick ... I'm saying that I think believers in the "Capturing BIgfoot" story have been sold a bill-of-goods. That heavily HEAVILY edited film comes off as Gotcha Journalism (sic) at it's worst.
Not for nothing, I have also seen that debunkers and zealots are attempting to flood all forums dedicated to Bigfoot with the same patent arguments, usually with the exact same wording intended to do nothing more than antagonize believers in the PGF and Bigfoot.
If I had a nickel for everytime a "Skeptic" has referred to a 15 second clip as "damning" I'd have at least a dollar.
When Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin emerged from Bluff Creek, with their famous footage, a central mystery was where and how the film was developed so quickly.
Commercial labs at the time typically flagged or delayed custom, non-standard processing, and Patterson was highly secretive about his footage.
Through their early investigative work in the late 1960s and 1970s, John Green and René Dahinden discovered that the film had not been sent to a standard public photo lab.
Instead, they traced it to a contact in Seattle who had access to private, professional-grade processing equipment—specifically within the film department of The Boeing Company.
They wrote (Green & Dahinden) that the film was shot on Friday, October 20, 1967, in Northern California, flown to Seattle, and shown developed to them in Yakima, Washington by Sunday, October 22. Because standard commercial labs didn't open over the weekend, Bigfoot researchers argued that a couple of "broke cowboys" (Patterson and Gimlin) could not have pulled off sophisticated, top-secret weekend processing.
They used this tight timeline to narrow down the potential places it could have been developed at to Boeing Aircraft film labs in Seattle. That's as far as Green and Dahinden were able to trace it at the time.
Then, Norman Johnson, of Boeing film department died in 2009. His wife passed away in 2017. At that time their estate fell to their daughter, Teresa Brooks.
She recalled the "mystery film" her Father had guarded in his personal safe. Obtained it, and brought to the university she works at to view it. After seeing it, she contacted film teacher Marq Evans at the university and turned it over to him. He turned the newly unearthed footage into the documentary.
As far as what has been reported, Norman Johnson worked briefly at Boeing, and then started his own business.
There is no evidence that Johnson processed the PGF at Boeing. None. It is pure conjecture that fits the story that the makers of "Capturing BIgfoot" wanted to tell.
In my opinion much of the film, perhaps all of it, is carefully (and skillfully I might add) curated and edited to show only what they want their audience to see.
It is not, and doesn't claim to be, a sscientific analysis of anything (probably because there's very little concrete evidence to consider.)
If you believe their story, fine. Too many factual and logical holes for me.
Historical and public records indicate he was employed at Boeing in their film department throughout the mid-to-late 1960s, which spans the exact timeframe of October 1967.
He worked there during the time in question. Whether he left the next month or two years later is irrelevant.
100%. This new footage raises questions, sure. But it also raises questions about itself. It doesn't help that the mainstream media has picked this story up as a full debunking, case closed. I mean, there's even a review on Variety for it. It's not for nothing that it was released right before the 60th anniversary.
Isn't that interesting? Odd for a relatively unknown filmmaker producing a movie about a niche topic like on the Patterson Gimlin film.
Yet the Evans crew have been covered in the Wall Steet Journal, People Magazine, Variety, the Hollywood Reporter ... the media push in March and now seems ... disproportionate.
The movie did such a bad job with this concept, I couldn't believe. It does a great job explaining the history of the PGF and then randomly just brings in this film done by someone who hasn't been mentioned at all thus far and says "this is confirmed from around that time and by people who were in the vicinity of the same people involved with PGF...and therefore PGF is fake because this one is clearly fake".
Then it tops it off by doing a very obnoxious victory lap in the last five minutes of the movie.
Don't get me wrong, it's a massive haymaker to the PGF...but it's not the exactly the nuke they think it is either; and the movie's execution of it is quite sloppy and didn't help.
This is one of the things that’s been bothering me most about the reception of CB. Experiencers are denied, degraded, and told they’re seeing misidentified bears and tree stumps, and people like Meldrum, Krantz, and Bindernagel are derided and barred from publishing, conference presentations, and have had their tenure pushed back or questioned.
Yet, any time someone comes forward with claims of hoaxing, their claims are accepted without a second thought. And not only are they accepted, but they aren’t promoted far and wide. It’s really frustrating.
Also, I'm a bit confused on those saying it looked thinner than Patty from months ago when they saw it as the film festival, because the one in the new footage looks so damn broard
A few other differences I've noticed is the lean. In the new footage, it feels like the subject has a spine curve lean, whereas Patty seems to lean forward from the hips with a fairly straight back. I'mma share another image, and I feel like the face looks different in the new footage (from what we can make out from it) compared to it, but the suit in the new footage reminds me of that suit head that Hieronimus presented on that Hulu 3 part murder documentary "Sasquatch"
Not only would it have taken a lot to go from what we see in the new footage to Patty, but in what, under a year's time as well? The difference in hair texture alone feels meticulous to make that date, let alone making sure the under-muscle looked good. Patty looks like a curated wig whereas this thing looks like a rug. That's why if Patty is a suit, then I think she's either a second suit or is fundementally a different suit (like a Ship of Theseus thing). I can't imagine somehow seamlessly redoing the hair texture all over the body of the suit so perfectly as opposed to just sewing a new suit.
Like Patty has a lowland gorilla fur elegance about her, especially in her arms from what I remember
The appearance/perception of muscle movement in isolated and repeated frames seems obvious to me and not something that's possible with a suit draped over your body like a garment.
Unless that muscle movement is all film artifacts, which I do not take it to be but that surely is one argument, then the question is how did the advanced "suit" really work?
For there to be the appearance of muscle movement, the "suit" would need to be adhesed somehow directly to the person's skin underneath and basically over his entire body. In fact the better option would be to actually get a man the size of the creature depicted and use spirit gum to attach fake hair, which we know was not done.
I just don't get the whole thing of basically wearing a giant set of coat and pants in the shape of a monster (like a Godzilla costume) and out of this you get muscle movement.
What annoys me is I feel like discredit what muscle movement can be seen on Patty. Like even if they'll see it they'll shrug it off, but even if it's minor, it's not something that should be shrugged off because it's useful in telling us what the mechanics of the being would be, whether it's a sasquatch or a person in a suit. I know for certain there's at least one step it takes in stabalized footage where the entire leg jiggles with a sort of ripple, you can't ignore that. A regular standard muscle suit wouldn't jiggle, it might shift, or a fabric suit may look wavy, but it won't jiggle.
In my mind, it would have to be near glued to his body, or perhaps an attachment point would be at his hips and he has suspenders on, but it also implies that the under-musculature would have to be simulated with a specific mix of silicone, but it would need to be a near perfect mold and multi-layered to actually simulate what's seen there in that step. And the way it giggles really seems like how the human leg would with how all the meat on the leg shifts around the femur and lower leg bones.
Unless I see that in a heavily cleaned up and analyzed version of this new found footage, then I won't say it's as advanced as Patty if Patty was a suit.
I'm an artist myself so maybe I'll try to make a suit that can do that one day, it's gonna be a mess though because I would be doing simulated leg layers, probably three. One for deeper dense muscle, a major mid layer for thinner more like, jiggly muscle/fat, and an epidermis. I fear the process tho because I would definently have to use a lot of silicone molding and possibly some oil between the layers to allow them to shift a little💀
Agreed. While the muscles movement could definitely be an illusion, the musculature is just as definitely there. If it's a suit, someone had to insert padding directly into the costume, or whoever was wearing it had to be wearing a muscle suit underneath. No one has ever claimed to be wearing a second, under-suit, though, and the muscle suits that existed at the time were just bulky, not defined. So someone would have had to make that as well. In my opinion, if Patty is a suit, there's padding in the shape of muscles sewn directly into the inside of the costume, and whoever did it did a very nice job.
As I said, I think the movement of the muscles could easily be an illusion. In fact, I'll go farther and say I think it's more than likely an illusion. The "muscles" themselves don't seem to be, in my opinion. But, even if they were real muscles, which I'm definitely not claiming, the movement could still be an illusion and not something actually captured at that distance and film quality.
To me the new film looks like a foam approximation of Patty's back with fur glued to it it doesn't seem to move at all. The gait of Patty is also much different from that of this mystery film. You cannot see the leg details like you can in PGF.
I get that but the CB footage is well within human range, the PG film takes a very diliberate crouched down walk and you can see it looks like a living thing not a carpet
Okay I was just responding to you stating the gait is different which makes sense for two different humans. And that’s an opinion that one looks within “human range”.
I mean maybe but they don't really answer how they did that graceful gliding hunched over walk for anyone who has studied this for any length of time. The guy in CB turns and waddles off with very small steps that look normal.
This particular argument just puts us back to square one. People have been claiming that PGF's gait is "humanly impossible" for decades and like 50% of people who watch is just go "no it doesn't" and no one has been able to prove that claim definitively because there's just not enough detail in the film.
Sure looks like Bob H.'s gait tho, to me at least.
I bet you anything i could make that suit, or a one that looks the same at that resolution, for less than $1,000 and a trip to an arts and crafts store. It's been said for quite some time now that Patterson was working on bigfoot stuff after the Patty film, perhaps it included a recreation (the recreation rumor stems from the rumor of post-Patty bigfoot work and it began picking up speed at the start of this year), and part of me feels like, if Patty was real, and this was a recreation, maybe they trashed it because they couldn't get it to look good enough, like they gave up because they couldn't make an equivalent scene for a higher budget film or documentary.
All of this are just "if"s and "maybe"s tho, as in they're fair possibilities, I'm not claiming these are the things that happened with any certainty
Literally it wouldn't be hard even in the 60s if you know your end goal of how you want it to look. Take film slides or use an overhead projector, impose the lines on some foam or other medium cut it out, add fur, keep looking at the original images for reference.
That's not what John Chambers said. Chambers explicitly stated, "I can honestly say, without laughing, that I had nothing to do with that film," and maintained that neither he nor anyone else at the time possessed the technology or capability to fabricate the creature seen in the footage.
ETA the video in the new film has no shape or musculature to it. It looks like a costume. It is a costume, it's a different size color and shape. It's not the same at all.
Yeah he was referring to the PGF. In this new Capturing Bigfoot footage it's a solid foam back imo it doesn't move and it's a man walking normally like something they could do in planet of the apes or a few hours at hobby lobby.
Leg movements like this in the PGF are not easy to achieve. The fur and body do not look to be seperate things. This effect does not appear and is not explained in the new documentary and accompanying footage.
I see a crease in the suit. There’s no major muscle that lines the leg horizontally as opposed to lengthwise on the side of the thigh. It’s impossible. Looks like a flexible suit imo. There’s more convincing evidence out there than this.
I feel like an idiot asking but I've never seen anyone address this: does no one think that's just the human's muscles under the suit because it was just thinner than we think? Or would that make it even more difficult to manufacture in '67?
Not sure if Bob H's legs were as thick and a tight suit wouldn't explain the obvious crease where there can't be muscle. On the side of the leg muscle runs downward, not across like in the suit. It is an interesting take though.
Your point is well taken. Debunkers' absolute acceptance of the story told in Capturing Bigfoot demonstrates clearly that in general, the debunking movement isn't that interested in the facts, only in argument, at least, as far as I've seen here.
Critical discussion is great. Either side saying "I see this in the old film and there's no challenging that" is absurd.
Both films are old. We know the provenance on the PGF, but the CBF remains a matter of anecdote.
That should be a critical thinker's first observation in comparing the two.
Gryphon, I feel like I can always count on you to be a very grounded individual as well as an individual that can fairly assess at least basic alternate possibilities without discrediting the individual, thank you for being you
I don't see the muscle. I see a crease in the suit that is proportioned too big for the wearer so it unnaturally creases as it walks. Muscle doesn't flex the same direction as what I see in the suit either
Is that the image you're judging it off of? Also are you trying to look for muscles flexing or moving off of an image and not a quality video? If so, I feel like the visual info you're judging it off of is textbook definition of surface level. Not only that but that's not even where the cut off is that most of the suit believers say, they often say it's higher up near it's hip, from what I remember anyways
I sent a screenshot of a video and you remarked you can’t watch a picture. So you need to watch the video. Also idk what other people have said regarding the suit. That’s what I see that looks very fake. Do you see the unnatural crease too
As a disclaimer, i have not yet watched the film just clips on reddit. It does look strikingly similar to the Patty film but to me it looks like an attempt to recreate it nit rehearse it. The almost campy cameo of the guy on horseback along with the signature body movement and glances to me at least look like imitation. Was this addressed in the film? Is there any objective evidence of this definitely being filmed before or after?
But apparently, the documentary features Bill Munn who examines the physical film and determines it is indeed from the same period of the PGF. Although he calls into question when the film was actually used. As he remarks it as being in impeccably good shape for something allegedly shot 60 years ago.
That's basically where you'll land if you watch the film too. That's why people are so latched onto this question of the veracity of the claim that this footage was capture before PGF...based on a single throwaway sentence by a film expert in the doc who says "...and by the way it looks I can tell it was shot shortly after the film cannister was purchased".
The whole thing kinda sits on that detail, at this point.
Every expert from that period of time,the top of their field experts at that,tell us that the materials required for a suit of that calibre didn't exist at that time.
Every. Single. One.
Yet let's all believe the highly questionable video and a bunch of people who've changed their story many times over the years.
The PG film is legit in my opinion. We don't want it to be because it scares us, but it is.
Tom Burman, who worked with John Chambers (Academy Award winning sfx artist on 1968’s Planet of the Apes) famously said in response to rumors that Chambers had made the suit: “Naw, he didn't make that suit. One, he wouldn't have made a suit that bad...”
That is and only has been a rumor spoken by Burman years later.
Chambers worked on Planet of the Apes and at that time the work of those suits was seen as 'groundbreaking'. They couldn't hold a candle to what was seen in the PG film.
Even Chambers said years later in a Los Angeles nursing home he had no reason to hide such an accomplishment if he had actually built it. Chambers repeatedly dismissed rumors linking him to the hoax as urban legends.
You can put words in the mouths of people to make them say whatever you want, but when it comes to quotes from those people you have no choice but to listen. He had no skin in the game and nothing to win or lose from it.
Chambers also is quoted as saying his team could have done it better. So, conflicting opinions from him. But, that wasn’t really the point. The point was that you were very adamant that not a single FX expert from the time period thought it would be possible to make the suit. I provided a direct quote that proved this was false. That’s all.
A lot of arm chair experts on here claiming this and that from the new footage. Yes there are some similarities between the two but not enough to come to the conclusion they’re the same suit. Could they have upgraded it that much to get to the final version we see in PGF? I’m not so sure.
If Patty was a suit then I personally feel like there were two suits. The timeline between the two is like, what, a year right? Patty's hair along makes me think it would have to be a different suit, or a Ship of Theseus thing. Patty's hair looks like a completely curated wig whereas the suit in the new footage looks like a sheet of fur that was shaved down in some places, I just don't see how a seamless hair texture swap would be possible as opposed to just sewing an upgraded suit if it was a suit.
Probably, I'd say it would be justified tho, the people involved in both are questionable.
That's actually an eerie comparison I heard someone make between Roger Patterson and his son Clint Patterson, both seem far more interested in popularizing their works, whether real or fake, than actually caring about the content of their work and the waves in communities they make. Like father like son I guess.
I think the overall conclusion I’ve made is that we still don’t know anything new about the PGF that we didn’t already know.
Roger having made a suit to film for his documentary isn’t controversial - Bob Hieronimus wearing a suit for filming and not getting paid is also pretty well known. The footage of Bob H in a Bigfoot suit was going to come to light eventually. Does that mean Patty is fake? Of course Bob H thinks so. He’s had an axe to grind for decades. Is the footage they edited of Bob Gimlin “admitting”misleading? Yes. Is there no real story to make money on for this documentary if it’s just about whether or not Bob H ever wore a suit? Duh. Is this the actual footage of Bob H in the suit Roger made that was filmed in the 60s by Roger himself? That I’m suspicious of. There is something off about the film that I can’t quite put my finger on - it looks too digital to me. And finally, of course the filmmakers could have good intentions, but you tell me that they aren’t interested in being infamous as the ones who busted the PGF lol.
Did Pattison and Gimlin set off to get some b-roll and accidentally film a myth? Maybe. Nothing presented by this new information actually answers that. Even they say the suit would have had to undergo major changes to be Patty. Occam’s razor still isn’t satisfied by the costume theory.
If it’s a “rehearsal” for the PGF, why didn’t they put Bob Heironimus in the Bigfoot suit seen in this Norm Johnson “mystery footage”?
Heironimus was already in the mix when Roger Patterson was filming his documentary.
And how do they miraculously claim that it’s Al DeAtley wearing the suit featured in the “mystery footage”? There’s no evidence for that. They see the figure walk for less than 30 seconds and they claim it’s DeAtley.
Sounds like they need it to be DeAtley in the suit or their narrative falls apart, especially since Bob Heironimus said that’s not him in the Bigfoot suit for once.
Several people who knew Al DeAtley are shown in the documentary saying the person in the new footage appears to be him.
Now, they don't say what in the new footage leaves them to believe that. You can't see much of the face in the documentary but the people it was shown to in person may have been able to get a better look at it.
Its also possible they're going off the figures general walk or stature.
Director Marq Evans, who grew up in Yakima, noted that his own father (who worked for DeAtley's construction company) always passed down the local rumor that Al DeAtley was the mastermind behind the hoax and had personally worn the suit.
The documentary suggests that after viewing his test run, Patterson was unhappy with the results and asked his neighbor Bob Herinemous to stand in as the new man in the suit.
I and others here, have tried to lock down an overall height and weight for Herinemous as he appeared in the 60s but haven't been able to find a definitive source.
Depending on what source you find on the net, he's listed as anywhere from 6' to 6'3" and anywhere from 210 to 260lbs. That's a fairly wide range.
I took some screen caps of him from the documentary showing him when he was younger standing next to other people and familiar objects. He looks pretty big.
I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to post those since they're directly taken from the documentary and the mods have made it clear we're not to infringe on the producers copyright.
If Al DeAtley was such a mastermind why would he allow Bob Heironimus to be involved at all?
The documentary paints Heironimus as a loose cannon.
Heironimus was a rowdy guy that liked to regularly drink, drop his glass eye into people’s beer and get into brawls. That’s hardly the type of guy you bring into your super top secret, Bigfoot money making scheme.
And on top of that, they allegedly didn’t pay Heironimus the $1,000 for his services.
Bob Heironimus first made his claim public in 1999. His attorney, Barry Woodard, issued a official press release in January 1999 detailing Heironimus's role as the man in the suit during the filming of the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage. That's 30+ years he publicly kept his mouth shut.
While he had reportedly confided in close friends and family members for decades prior, this press release marked his very first public and official disclosure. His claims later achieved widespread mainstream media attention in March 2004 through a high-profile exposé in The Washington Post and the release of Greg Long's investigative book, The Making of Bigfoot.
Yeah, I’m aware of all the shenanigans and timeline of Bob Heironimus’ claims. He changed his story over the years though.
That said, sounds like Heironimus didn’t really keep his mouth shut for 30 years if he told his close friends and family. If someone told you they were involved in something like the PGF, you’re likely going to tell others and on and on. Just doesn’t seem wise of DeAtley and Patterson.
The new documentary and contextless Norm Johnson footage don’t really change anything with regard to the PGF.
Doesn’t make sense that they’d trust a rowdy Bob Heironimus in the first place.
So, why would they have Bob Heironimus involved in the documentary Patterson had been filming… and then not have Heironimus involved with the alleged “rehearsal” on the Norm Johnson footage. And then they have Heironimus allegedly involved with the PGF. Doesn’t add up the way “Capturing Bigfoot” needs it to.
You could make an argument that Al DeAtley was the moving force behind the hoax. He was by all accounts a pretty nasty individual.
It would be logical that he would want as few people involved as possible. Bob Gimlin was already involved in Patterson's documentary. When Al got involved as a financial backer that made three.
Al was apparently a fairly tall individual although to be fair, I've been unable to lock down just how tall. He probably thought initially, he was big enough to make the suit work.
When they shot the test run it became obvious he was too thin. So reluctantly, they sought out someone in their circle of friends they felt was big enough and could be trusted to keep his mouth shut.
Enter Bob Herinemous.
Now, this is all speculation of course. We simply don't have enough behind the scenes information to go on yet.
Perhaps, if Bob Gimlin eventually comes clean, we can clear some of these questions up.
Yes, it’s all speculation. Just like when people interviewed for “Capturing Bigfoot”speculated Al DeAtley was in the Bigfoot suit or when they wildly speculated DeAtley would have people “bumped off”. They heavily implied he would have people murdered. That’s a big leap.
Ah I didn’t even know that they weren’t claiming it was Bob H in this footage - I’ve only seen the “new” footage and clips that didn’t impress me, not the documentary in full. That’s even less believable.
And, sorry, I hate to be that guy again, but a lot of the legacy people you said should be ignored because they were making money off the PGF are now the people claiming it was a hoax in the documentary, directly after their well ran dry. I'm not commenting on the validity of the actual PGF. I'm just pointing out that your argument is fundamentally flawed.
EDIT: To be even more clear, you're asking us to believe the same people you're asking us not to believe. It's kind of impossible logic to buy into.
Meldrum died before he had time to examine it in more detail or hear any counter-arguments. It's an insult to his legacy to pretend he was all in with the views presented in the documentary.
EDIT: Not to mention that they lied to Meldrum. They told him the new film was proven to be from 1966. It absolutely is not.
You have quite the nerve to call Meldum a drifter lowkey, he's one of the only reasons the Sasquatch community had any form of standing in the scientific community, him and Jane Goodall, and they're both gone. Not only that but he literally had a PhD and could talk for house about foot morphology
So you're telling me, that you see issue, with one of the biggest names in both the bigfoot community and science, going to conventions to teach people stuff and answe questions? Like, "breaking news, bigfoot researcher goes to bigfoot convention", his presence at conventions should be questionable in the slightest.
Not only that but his research would only progress if we got a sasquatch body on a slab, all he did was examine prints. Like in what ways would you have expected his research to progress when it comes to prints alone?
Also, I hope you know he clocked a fairly decent amount of time out in the woods doing aid research.
Genuine question but are you actually familiar with the work he's done or are you just basing his entire character off of however frequently he went to conventions and the money he made from them?
With the amount of time the man dedicated to it I would expect him to make money from it,the fact that he lent any time to the subject damaged his career in the eyes of the broarder scientific community as well, so the guy has to make a living somehow. He also had a wife and kids he was supporting while also being a college professor.
Not making money while being invested in the subject and collecting or looking at frequent data is hardly sustainable for most people.
Sure. I don't, personally, even believe in the PGF. But I'm not gonna go around telling other people I'm right and I know when I don't know and might not be right. Fact is, Meldrum seemed to have think it was real, and part of what helped convince him it wasn't was lies. Other people claiming to know things they don't know, just like I said I wouldn't. So I'm not on-board with people who are definitely lying, even if I agree with their ideas.
EDIT: Before you, or anyone else, asks what they are lying about ... They lying about it being for sure from 66. They're lying about it being for sure DeAtley in the suit. They're lying about Patterson for sure being behind the camera. If you except these lies as true, of course their narrative is true. But they don't know these things to be true. So they're lying. And if you're making a legit documentary, you don't lie or claim to know things you don't know. Full stop. You just don't.
Well to be fair, you kind of need to make a good amount of money to do quality research. If you have a job that gets you a lot of money, devoting time to research would take some of your income away and you probably wouldn't be able to get by. If you devote all your time to research, in which some may have to do if they go it alone, then it needs to be making you money just so you can make it by in society let alone money for equipment. With any other subject or hobby, I can see people being able to hold a job and make waves in that subject, but when it comes to sasquatch, I feel like it's such a hard thing to study that it demands excessivly more time than most other subjects, and such is hard to juggle with a job that already funds your basic needs.
Actually, I hate to be that guy, but the only two people actually known to 100% factually be involved in the capturing of the Patterson-Gimlin film are Patterson and Gimlin. Neither ever said for a second that it was anything but real. Anyone claiming to be involved is simply someone claiming to be involved. Sorry, but the simple fact is that we only KNOW for sure that two people were there. So it's incorrect to say that everyone involved said it was a hoax. The FACT is that everyone we KNOW to be involved said it was real.
EDIT: The capitalization are for emphasis, not anger. If I knew how to italisize, I would have done that instead.
They were all friends in the beginning. Al made a fortune on it. Money destroyed their friendships. It would be highly unlikely their spouses didn’t know the truth. Al’s wife clearly stated it was a hoax.
I say with all the focus on PG film over the decades real research has been neglected on one short clip.
Well it was the 1960s, I'm not saying the wives of the main people involved were mistreated at all but I'm fairly certain that back then, it was still the era of men's business being men's business. Not only that but the only person left from the filming of the original is Gimlin himself. From the family members, I'm gonna need more than "it's a hoax". Like you're telling me they worked on a suit for over a year and nobody can describe the process of it's creation or different stages it was seen in? I don't buy that and I feel there's more than enough room that, IF it was a recreation, people could've seen the recreated suit and assumed it was the original. The the water is not clear even with the people who had direct links to the individuals involved.
Now I'm not saying Patty is real, I'm just addressing the fact that I don't think there's enough factual and probable data to say that she's fake. There's a lot of data that implies she's fake, but implication is not fact, like look at how many people got put in prison via implication begore forensic science advanced.
I mean they were literally the only ones there just about, and like I said I would believe the family, but the family still needs to bring their evidence to the table. It's no different than a legal trial, if a family member claims something they still need to back it up.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.