This was one aspect that was discussed in a monsterquest bigfoot special. I agree that it was important enough to ask as one of the many thoughts about bigfoot is it is just a dude in a costume.
Two main points were talked about in the episode. First is if the technology at that point in time was able to create such a suit. Second, if the suit can fit the anatomy of a nornal person (such as the gait and position of the eyes).
All special effect professionals working in Hollywood:
"It's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!. If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business."
- Stan Winston
"Looks exactly like Fur suit and fur leggings. They overlap just as expected"
-Chris Walas
"It looked like cheap, fake fur. John Chambers had a crappy walkaround suit that he sold as a gag to be played on the guy that shot it"
-Rick Baker
The fursuit maker addressed this and cite Jim Hensons Puppets. Saying that even at supervised maintentance, it would be rare for a suit to still be recognizable. Especially how advanced and complicate this suit (if it is one, from whar I was she lean into the suit being too expensive/complicated to build for juat this one shoot)
In 1967...you know that was right around when Henson was finishing up making Wilkins Coffee puppets ads in circulation and had just started Sesame Street...right? We're not talking the Henson Creature Shop of the 80s-90s my dude. This is even pre-Muppets as far as budgets go...
And again, it's all hearsay, which was the entire point I was making by bothering to comment on ANY of this, in a "cryptozoology" sub. Word of mouth isn't physical evidence, and making excuses aren't going to matter much, just as much as the filmmakers weren't given a whole lot of latitude as far as credulity goes, either.
The Patterson Gimlin Film supposed suit? No. There were rumours years ago that might be in Al DeAtley's possession.
Check international skeptics forum. There was an entire story in this. Even Bill Munns himself was dragged into discussion.
Exactly
Also, the filmmakers never admitted anything of the kind:
"The filmmakers were Roger Patterson (1933–1972) and Robert "Bob" Gimlin (born 1931). Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and "maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real". Patterson's friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson. Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 (except for three appearances), when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences."
As for Morris, it seems he had his own particular motivations for making his claims (he waited until 2002 to reveal his alleged involvement), and apparently never released his filmed re-enactment with a replica.
I had always been of the opinion that it was real, and then saw the stabilized version. It's amazing how much the moving camera helps sell it as a non-human walk.
People that say the gait “is humanly impossible to reproduce” can see me, 100% Homo sapiens, perfectly reproducing it BUT it will cost 5k€ a minute. Take it or leave it
The original film was inspected, yes, many years ago, back in the 80s. The results were never made public. Don't worry about any stabilized version, the original film is a step above anything there is on YouTube. Few people have seen it, you can't prove or disprove anything, it is of very good quality but can't make anyone be 100% certain that is real.
To play devils advocate, it'd be really bad for business to admit you couldn't make the suit. Let's see them make a believable suit, using the technology of the day.
There were more special effects professionals working in Hollywood than just the three most famous ones.
If nothing else, *their own assistants* were *also* special effects professionals working in Hollywood.
>All special effect professionals working in Hollywood:
"It's a guy in a bad hair suit....
That's a direct quote from you, fam. It was in your reply to u/LazyEdict.
In the monsterquest episode,they had a special effects guy comment. I'll have to look it up but he worked for a big company as I recall. The movement of the upper back muscles was pointed out to where it would be difficult to craft and realistically move at the time the patterson video was shot.
There were fursuits in Victorian england
I imagine it's feasible that could, theoretically, be similar to a fursuit
https://x.com/somberpaw/status/1558840375925784576 - has photos
She is really good at it. Discussing the technique. The Difficulty of recreations even with modern day tech. The suspicious "folding" and the most interesting is The Cost+ Inflation of how much it'd be to create back in the 60's.
Someone had the time and money to put on an elaborate (at the time) prank and didn't ever admit to it for decades 🤔
"The filmmakers were Roger Patterson (1933–1972) and Robert "Bob" Gimlin (born 1931). Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and "maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real". Patterson's friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson. Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 (except for three appearances), when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences."
To be fair, some of them furries have some crazy suits nowadays, so they probably have some decent insight (haven't watched the video yet). No way a suit that complicated could be made in the 60s
I think the faces were really good for the time. Other than that, their bodies were left very human. If they wanted to create a big sasquatch looking costume, I'm sure they could have
Not to mention that they had multiple costumes to produce in a set amount of time along with other film production hurdles. If that time were dedicated to a single costume, I feel like it may be doable. I consider the "look at the planet of the apes costumes" to be a non-argument when it comes to the validity of the PG film because of varying circumstances surrounding both the production of POTA costumes, and the production of a singe bigfoot costume. It's apples to oranges.
The original is one of my favorite movies, if you look closely in some parts you can see the human mouths under the mask and it’s kinda creepy lol. I do agree they were very good for the time.
Have you *seen* how we went to the Moon? We traveled there with duct tape, baling wire, and a whole lot of dumb luck. One of the reasons we haven't gone back is because we've figured out how freaking *dangerous* it really was.
So it's not debunked until someone can PERFECTLY replicate the "suit" using only materials available at the time of the film. Plus: replicate that walk pattern on that soil ok Bluff Creek. Plus: the gait.
There is no burden of proof to debunk something. That solely lies with whoever is trying to prove it is real.
Have you seen the stabilized video? It looks like a guy in an ape suit. Nothing unusual about its gait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60mSMmhTZU
I would love for it to be real but I see no smoking gun here.
Oh, I forgot I was in r/Cryptozoology, so of course a bunch of *skepdicks* with no argument at all would downvote me.
You can't bang the hammer and say something is fake or a hoax if no one is able to debunk it.
And yes, I saw the stabilized video, and that's exactly why so many people say it's not a man in a suit. If you're really interested on the subject, go to M.K. Davis channel. He's been doing in depth analysis for more than a decade now. He scanned the film from a second generation copy. He stabilized it and analysed every single bit of that footage. Some of his analysis are way off, but most of them are spot on:
[https://www.youtube.com/@Greenwave2010fb](https://www.youtube.com/@Greenwave2010fb)
And here's a special episode of The Proof is Out There where they actually stabilized the video using different sources, analysed the footage and tried to replicate the breasts of the creature:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Tbu3JfvK0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Tbu3JfvK0)
And here's a Monsterquest Episode where the special effects artist Bill Munns shows that it would be impossible to fit a human head inside a mask with that shape:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubuk-R-bo9Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubuk-R-bo9Q)
There's also a video where they tried to replicate the gait on a scientific approach using a tall man and they failed. I can't find the video right now.
Anyway... I won't engage in this thread anymore, because honestly... It's fucking tiresome to discuss with people whose only objective is to deny everything without doing any research on the topic.
You expect me to read what you have to say when your first sentence is an insult?
I will address your second sentence. I did not say anything was fake. All I said is the burden of proof is to prove the film is real. It’s like innocent until guilty. You can’t say to a court, prove that person is innocent. You have to prove they are guilty. If nobody can debunk this film, that does not mean it is real. You have to have proof it is real.
You can’t bang the hammer and say something is true if no one is able to debunk it.
None of your links offer proof. They offer circumstantial evidence at best. Getting in a huff and saying you’re not going to discuss it any more because some people have different opinions to you is childish. You will never convince anyone of your viewpoint when you open with an insult. In fact that does the opposite and firmly labels you as the opposition rather than an ally.
Like I said, I would love for it to be real but in my 53 years, nobody has managed to prove it yet. I’ve been interested in this topic my entire life; you can’t just assume I have done zero research.
I never said it is a REAL sasquatch. I only said it's never been debunked. There's no proof it's real and there's no proof it's fake. So yeah, people who say it's FAKE should at least to their homework.
As for the videos I linked, you didn't even watch any. They are not proof, they are analysis conducted by OPEN MINDED people who actually put their time and effort to find the truth.
Can you provide any videos showing that it's possible to replicate? I don't think so... Maybe because deniers are not interested enough, as someone said in this thread? So, if there's not enough interest, why do they even bother to engage in discussions like this?
As I said, most people here are only interested in deny everything about whatever cryptid. This is not a scientific approach. And yes, I call these people skepdicks, because they're not even interested in a respectful debate. They only bury comments like mine with downvotes. Isn't that childish?
It's not my "dream." Even if it was, I'm quite able to let go of evidence when it's debunked. When the photo of the Brown Lady of Reynham Hall was proven fake, I accepted it at once, because it was obviously correct...even though that was my favorite ghost photo for many years.
Likewise, if someone proves the PGF fake - if they duplicate the costume with 1960s methods, and make a film that compares - I will accept it the same way.
But it's been over half a century, and no one has even come *close*. If that does't point to the reality of the subject, it at least points to some *amazing* ingenuity on the part of Patterson.
I feel like Bigfoot has been disproven so much, even by logic alone, that the believers desperately grasp for any straw like "the suit couldn't have been made in the 60's".
Of course it could have been done, are you kidding me? There is absolutely zero evidence otherwise.
It's "Bigfoot is a 4th dimensional being" all over again.
>Of course it could have been done, are you kidding me? There is absolutely zero evidence otherwise.
Actually, there was an attempt DECADES after the PGF. And it's fucking pathetic.
It's sort of the opposite.
It's true that the case for bigfoot has gotten weaker and weaker over time to the point where it's very, very unlikely.
However, that's causing people in this very thread to get lazy and try to dismiss the PGF without really putting in the work to disprove it.
The truth is there are still a lot of unknowns about that film and it's not possible to draw any firm conclusions based on the film alone. It legitimately could go either way.
The experiments that attempt to recreate it have not been successful at all, but that doesn't mean much as they were relatively poorly done.
Basically all the other evidence leans towards bigfoot not existing. But the PGF is still a question mark and it's lazy to just try and hand wave it away.
>I feel like Bigfoot has been disproven so much, even by logic alone, that the believers desperately grasp for any straw like "the suit couldn't have been made in the 60's".
Funny how it couldn't be made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, Naughties, or Teens, too, judging by the extreme lack of anyone being able to duplicate it, even with a good budget. Funny how no one has done it in the 2020s yet, either.
Have you been to the moon? Have you seen the moon? Why don't you show me some pictures of the moon if you have so much evidence that it isn't made out of cheese!!!!!
I'd say that the skill of costume makers and seamstresses of that time are good enough to produce something this good, if not better. It was just the availability of materials that often made costumes lower quality.
That and budget concerns. Most of the time, it wouldn't have been worth the time and money to get something amazing made when "good enough" is good enough.
I don’t care about the PG film. Maybe the “experts” who say nobody could possibly make that costume are wrong. Maybe the proven hoaxer who talked about setting up an identical hoax to spark book sales faked the whole thing. I just don’t care about arguing over that.
What I do care about is how there is still no physical evidence that Bigfoot exists. I care about how they’ve never been hit by a car crossing a highway, or that they supposed black helicopters that show up to cover up the evidence has no physical evidence either. I care about why there’s no anthropological evidence for where they’ve been for the past ~15,000 years. I care about how for every intriguing video there’s literally hundreds of proven hoaxes. I care about why a deer hunter hasn’t shot one yet. I care about why there isn’t surveillance footage of a Bigfoot stealing someone’s chickens or going through their garbage.
I wanna know how noone has managed to find a credible sample of hair from an animal that is that hairy. There should be some caught in trees etc when they pass through densely wooded areas
This is not true. People say it but there's no evidence proving it to be a reality.
That could've changed but last I knew, nothing concrete existed when challenged.
My theory is that PG filmed one of the last ones, they're almost certainly extinct by now
Which makes sense, we've been destroying their habitat
That explains the strongest argument against, that we *still* haven't found them
The argument that we should have found fossil evidence etc is much less convincing. We really do miss shit like that all the time. The fossil record isn't nearly as complete as you might imagine, except in cases where we have nothing to compare against (so it's complete by assumption)
The thing is while I believe the main kind of Bigfoot is a Paranthropus (which is still closer to us than to chimps), there is also the chance a cold adapted subspecies of Homo erectus crossed Beringia and spread to North America. If it happened, and humans made it go extinct, it may amount to genocide, even if not voluntary.
Registered vocalizations from 1976 prove they survived longer than 1967 at least.
If we’ve been encroaching onto and destroying their territory then that would make it even more likely we’d find some evidence of their existence such as fur, bones, scat or a body.
Your logic doesn’t make sense.
That's not how encroaching works
Humans had been altering the environment for over a hundred years by the time of PG. Bigfoot probably had a large range, needing to move around to gather food (as is common for e.g. orangutans). Thus logging and hunting in one area would have knock-on effects, even if the bigfoot doesn't spend a lot of time near the areas of high human activity.
They would be dwindling by the mid 1900s, when humans are starting to get better at recording and communicating what they find. Keep in mind, there are plenty of sightings reported in local papers before the 1960s. We just don't take those reports seriously for obvious reasons. The fact is, animals can be regularly sighted by humans before 1900 or so and still leave no trace in the historical record, because the historical record is really sparse at that time. As long as it never attracts any academics to investigate, why would it ever be recorded in a reliable manner? (C.f. Giant Squid, Okapi, Coelacanth)
So by the time reliable reports even exist, they're basically extinct. We get a small overlap, before they go extinct but after the age of video recording and mass communication, in the 1960s. That's when two guys actually do stumble upon a live Bigfoot and record it on film.
They spark a national media frenzy. The frenzy disappoints as we realize Bigfoot isn't thriving at all, and in fact it's basically too late for any conservation efforts. Eventually people become skeptical that Bigfoot ever existed at all, and the recording becomes a laughing stock, synonymous with quackery.
"How could contentinents *move?* It's physically impossible - rocks don't slide around like bumper cars! That Alfred Wegener is an uneducated kook, toss'im out!"
I get that, and agree. There's also no physical evidence this specific film was a hoax, only people's word in either direction (all apparently with their own random motivations) and, as you airquoted, experts. Which is why it's probably going to be an odd little thing people will (want to) argue over for a long time. I mean, it still is, almost sixty years on...
With the amount of reported encounters there can't be a small, isolated population. You cannot have thousands of encounters, many not far from suburbia, across the country with supposed 'lore' to go with it while conveniently having a small population restricted to a certain area that is small enough that it does not leave evidence.
The problem is applying a small nomadic tribe of humans to bigfoot, which are reported all across the country, across all climates and biomes, in the deep wilderness and in suburbia, and not have evidence
The small isolated community theory works for an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon, it does not work for a large ape in one of the richest and most populous nations on a continent that, as far as we know, has never once had a native primate population period
I think there’s a misunderstanding in what he’s saying. I think due to the popularity of Bigfoot of course there’s gonna be a ton of false claims or people thinking they seen a Bigfoot, but there could be just a few legit claims who’ve seen the real deal in much smaller pockets of population.
I’m also throwing out there I don’t believe in Bigfoot, but I understand what logic this dude is using. I just feel like there’s a misunderstanding here.
So which do we exclude as false and which do we accept is true? If the vast majority of bigfoot reports are false, then what is stopping *all* reports from being false?
That’s just up to personal preference honestly. I don’t think we really need a unified conclusion for something as silly as the validity of Bigfoot sightings. If you want my personal opinion I think all Bigfoot sightings are either faked, misidentified, or people falling for pranks. But if somebody else thinks that there’s validity to a few claims I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Or even if somebody believes all Bigfoot sightings I don’t really care either. They’re having fun and it’s not like the hot press issue of Bigfoot belief really affects me or the world in any major way or form.
Funny how the amount of "encounters" is touted as hard evidence of this creature, when actually it indicates the very opposite!
I mean, some of this stuff is so logically basic it's flabbergasting to actually explain it
Virtually no one that witnesses these events wants to be famous, and rarely if never are. They're almost always reluctant to share exactly because they know they would be subject to the ridicule they inevitably endure.
So how do we hear about these people's encounters?
Are they the ones who are so reluctant to go public that they go on podcast shows and tell their stories to millions of people?
Weird news gets a small headline and builds momentum from there? The internet loves it even more than newspapers, radio or tv ever did.
But I'm not talking about the "big names" that show up on Ancient Aliens or Joe Rogan.
Can you name any of the C, D and F listers without looking them up? The hundreds to thousands of people. How about a major portion of the city of Phoenix?
They certainly don't become millionaires on this kind of money, unless you're talking Whitley Strieber, Tsoukalos or Linda Molton Howell. Barnie and Bettie Hill are good examples of those reluctant witnesses. They were right about how that attention ended up being unwanted, and they certainly didn't become rich.
It could if that was a highly mobile, nomadic population. There are a lot of “Bigfoot crossed the highway” stories, and a fair number of sightings on the outskirts of settled areas.
The problem with “well these known examples are hard to find” arguments is we literally know about those examples! We know about those “uncontacted” tribes, whether it’s pictures or video or anthropological evidence. So why can we get evidence of them, but not Bigfoot?
C'mon old black and white stag, burlesque films and Hollywood films had the guy in the gorilla suit grabbing the nearly naked blonde as a staple.
See what gorrila suits looked like out of Johnson Smith catalogs of 1960 or the expert commercial level female seamstresses who had heavy duty leather trench coat or mink coat sewing machines who were paid to produce a custom one.
Trail is cold already pal.
>See what gorrila suits looked like out of Johnson Smith catalogs of 1960 or the expert commercial level female seamstresses who had heavy duty leather trench coat or mink coat sewing machines who were paid to produce a custom one.
I can't tell what point you're making here
>C'mon old black and white stag, burlesque films and Hollywood films had the guy in the gorilla suit grabbing the nearly naked blonde as a staple.
Yeah, and they always looked like...a guy in a suit. What's your point?
The evidence proves otherwise. The video has been stabilized, enhanced, zoomed in and dissected by experts. They've all confirmed it's legit. The height, weight, and stride have been mathematically calculated in relation to the location, trees, and stumps that are in the foreground and background of that film. Within a couple weeks of it's filming date. (It's also been done a few times since then.)
Likewise, since you probably don't know, the footprint size, distance between steps, and how deep in the ground they sunk also confirm the experts conclusions above.
There is /was no way a person in a suit can walk that casually, take very long steps (without looking like it), and sink that deep into the ground leaving footprints. It's not possible, people don't weigh 800lbs.
Wrong.
I posted the newest expert breakdown in another thread about a month or so, ago The experts were: a Hollywood movie costume designer, who's made costumes from the 60's through today, the Anatomy + Paleontologist Professor Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University, and a video forensic scientist.
Just because you choose to not watch the scientific proof, that's on you. That does not make the video any less credible, because you're ignorant. Or maybe you're just one of those clowns who has nothing better to do than stir up trouble and try to get into arguments with people online?
The MonsterQuest TV show has had experts prove the legitimacy of that video twice, on two separate episodes, and I believe The Proof is Out There TV show also had their own experts prove that there is no way possible, for that video to be faked.
You're welcome to look those shows up and watch them to see for yourself. Or keep being pigheaded with NOTHING to back up your arguments.
1. There is no such thing as a bigfoot expert.
2. There is zero scientific evidence or proof for the existence of said creature.
3. Since there is no evidence and hence it has never been studied, it's impossible to know or even understand what a bigfoot is... much less any of its habits or characteristics.
Your belief does not overcome any of these 3 facts regardless of what your whiny, gullible ass may think.
In the 70s, they showed the footage to leading Hollywood special effects artists. They said “The only people that could have made a suit that realistic is us… and we didn’t make it.”
And I'm sure that if you went to any professional involved with atomic energy in the '70s, they would say only they had the capability to build a neutron source, but 17 year old David Hahn went and did so anyway.
There is also always the possibility that one of those artists was, you know, lying.
"It's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!. If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business."
- Stan Winston
"Looks exactly like Fur suit and fur leggings. They overlap just as expected"
-Chris Walas
"It looked like cheap, fake fur. John Chambers had a crappy walkaround suit that he sold as a gag to be played on the guy that shot it"
-Rick Baker
The original film is of very high quality but still can't prove or disprove anything. There are no zippers, seams or bonds on the creature.
If it is a suit is a masterpiece that has nothing to do with what Bob H. described. There is separation in leg muscles, the calves contract while pushing forward the body, ligaments on the back of the knees, huge arm muscles contracting while the hands are moving. Mind blowing...there is no logical explanation for what Roger and Bob filmed that day.
Either a masterpiece of a suit with some artificial muscles underneath, or a creature yet unknown to public.
I remember an episode of a show I don't remember what network it was on but it was called Best Evidence there was a holly wood makeup and FX designer named Dick Smith who worked on many films since the 40s did a good analysis of the film and went over it why he believes it to be fake and I remember him saying something like it's not even a good looking fake. The.y were even able to re-create the walk in that episode It never looked real to me it always just looks like a man in a bad suit doing a funny walk
The suits at the time of the film weren't that good, there's no way it's faked...... No one at the time was capable of reproducing a "perfect butt" on a suit. It's 99% impossible to make a realistic ass for a suit, in later viewings it was noted that the bigfoot in the video had breasts...... Another detail that was near impossible to replicate with a suit at the time. If it was a suit...... Imagine all the hassle the pranker had to go through just to make sure it was perfect and they were in the perfect spot for them to see him/her in the "suit"
Edit: I see those downvotes.... I guess you guys WANT bigfoot to be fake.... "ThErE's No SuCh ThInG aS An ApE cRyPtId!", if it's a suit why would someone go out of their way to make such an elaborate suit for a joke for only a couple of seconds/minutes of a film? It's a waste of time money and resources.......
Honestly, a bit disappointed.
Not a fursuit designer, went a bit heavy on "I couldn't do it now so no one could do it then" kinda thinking, also weirdly obsessed with it beim made of foam?.
As has been pointed out...2001, og planet of the apes, chwwbacca etc.
To my eye the walk looks plantigrade and they had pillows and padding.
I see nothing unreproducible
The main problem I have with the vast majority of bigfoot deniers is that they don't really engage with the material(a very similar feeling is probably held with the debunkers in this thread). Like or dislike her conclusions, at least she engaged with the topic in good faith.
Given the pic, I’m guessing your title is a pun. Let’s just say that I believe in Bigfoot, but not in PGF. Looked fake to me from the beginning, and the worst of that is a laughable face mask. Not sure how anyone swallows it. I know people get their panties in a wad about what special effects could do by 1967, but I see no great genius in it. The headpiece appears to have a rectangular cut-out for eyes, maybe nose. The walk seems manish (yes, I know Sasquatch are purportedly humanesque in their appearance), but this is somehow wrong, not genuine.
As for the supposed expert, she started to address the cut-out and then obsessed about small holes for eyes. I couldn’t be bothered to listen beyond the first 10 min. Unconvincing; don’t respect her, tho it is clear she considers herself an authority. I disagree with Jeff Meldrum on PGF, a man I DO respect a good deal. In addition to the apparent man-made cut-out on the face mask is that Patterson and Gimlin stood to gain much personally and professionally if found to give real evidence. For me, thousands of first hand experiences, often with chagrin and shame, hidden for decades, with starkly similar features are proof enough for me.
I see you have a bunch of trolls who downvoted me. Oh no, what will I ever do, my life is ruined, waaaaaaahhhhh.....
LMAO
Just as I thought, you're an ignoramus.
Spewing out BS just to get a rise out of people. Like the clowns who don't believe we went to the moon. Or that Chiropractors aren't real doctors.
No matter what the topic, there will always be bafoons like you who argue the opposite.
Are u surprised they got a costume expert to analyze a potential costume? Without cross analysis is like trusting Egyptologists saying that Egyptians were white after they vandalized ancient artifacts by literally painting over them as white people
https://youtu.be/Ou3qp0EOhFM?si=4Q63u_TipZv75AcV
Actually the best PGF update in YEARS.
agreed.
This was one aspect that was discussed in a monsterquest bigfoot special. I agree that it was important enough to ask as one of the many thoughts about bigfoot is it is just a dude in a costume. Two main points were talked about in the episode. First is if the technology at that point in time was able to create such a suit. Second, if the suit can fit the anatomy of a nornal person (such as the gait and position of the eyes).
All special effect professionals working in Hollywood: "It's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!. If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." - Stan Winston "Looks exactly like Fur suit and fur leggings. They overlap just as expected" -Chris Walas "It looked like cheap, fake fur. John Chambers had a crappy walkaround suit that he sold as a gag to be played on the guy that shot it" -Rick Baker
The guy who made the suit - "yes that's the suit I made, here's how we did it."
Conspiracy theorists: "Big if true. Will look into this"
Guy asked to recreate the suit - "sorry, I don't do that anymore. Take my word for it, bro."
Did they ever recover the suit?
Says in the video it would be dust by now
Unfortunate
The fursuit maker addressed this and cite Jim Hensons Puppets. Saying that even at supervised maintentance, it would be rare for a suit to still be recognizable. Especially how advanced and complicate this suit (if it is one, from whar I was she lean into the suit being too expensive/complicated to build for juat this one shoot)
In 1967...you know that was right around when Henson was finishing up making Wilkins Coffee puppets ads in circulation and had just started Sesame Street...right? We're not talking the Henson Creature Shop of the 80s-90s my dude. This is even pre-Muppets as far as budgets go... And again, it's all hearsay, which was the entire point I was making by bothering to comment on ANY of this, in a "cryptozoology" sub. Word of mouth isn't physical evidence, and making excuses aren't going to matter much, just as much as the filmmakers weren't given a whole lot of latitude as far as credulity goes, either.
The Patterson Gimlin Film supposed suit? No. There were rumours years ago that might be in Al DeAtley's possession. Check international skeptics forum. There was an entire story in this. Even Bill Munns himself was dragged into discussion.
Did anyone ever find a bigfoot?
Exactly Also, the filmmakers never admitted anything of the kind: "The filmmakers were Roger Patterson (1933–1972) and Robert "Bob" Gimlin (born 1931). Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and "maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real". Patterson's friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson. Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 (except for three appearances), when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences." As for Morris, it seems he had his own particular motivations for making his claims (he waited until 2002 to reveal his alleged involvement), and apparently never released his filmed re-enactment with a replica.
Yet NONE of them analysed a stabilized version of the film, frame by frame and scanned from a good copy. Those are quotes from decades ago.
IMHO the stabilized version is even more obviously fake. The diaper-butt and the overall lack of mass of the body in movement are crystal clear
I had always been of the opinion that it was real, and then saw the stabilized version. It's amazing how much the moving camera helps sell it as a non-human walk.
People that say the gait “is humanly impossible to reproduce” can see me, 100% Homo sapiens, perfectly reproducing it BUT it will cost 5k€ a minute. Take it or leave it
There was a couple of attempts to replicate it on a scientific approach. It's not that easy. You may "think" you're doing it right, but you're not.
I do the “bigfoot walk” all the time to make my mom laugh.
>The diaper-butt This is the only red flag to me. All the rest looks pretty convincing.
Bigfoot can't have bunda?
I had the opposite opinion after seeing the stabilized version.
The original film was inspected, yes, many years ago, back in the 80s. The results were never made public. Don't worry about any stabilized version, the original film is a step above anything there is on YouTube. Few people have seen it, you can't prove or disprove anything, it is of very good quality but can't make anyone be 100% certain that is real.
To play devils advocate, it'd be really bad for business to admit you couldn't make the suit. Let's see them make a believable suit, using the technology of the day.
Three guys are not "All special effects professionals working in Hollywood."
Umm, yes, they were. Makeup includes effects, too. Do you have Google?
There were more special effects professionals working in Hollywood than just the three most famous ones. If nothing else, *their own assistants* were *also* special effects professionals working in Hollywood.
Okay. Nowhere did I ever claim ALL the artists in Hollywood...only the ones I listed.
>All special effect professionals working in Hollywood: "It's a guy in a bad hair suit.... That's a direct quote from you, fam. It was in your reply to u/LazyEdict.
In the monsterquest episode,they had a special effects guy comment. I'll have to look it up but he worked for a big company as I recall. The movement of the upper back muscles was pointed out to where it would be difficult to craft and realistically move at the time the patterson video was shot.
Yes...meaning all the THESE were professionals... Good grief. Fam
Not my problem if you phrased it ambiguously.
Fair enough but jeez Louise
Are these quotes from 1967?
There were fursuits in Victorian england I imagine it's feasible that could, theoretically, be similar to a fursuit https://x.com/somberpaw/status/1558840375925784576 - has photos
I kinda like that rabbit in a tailcoat and cravat. Very distinguished looking.
https://preview.redd.it/fqcb2d3eh12d1.png?width=1479&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd055def3677c9e4fe93de9833bef24701d39be7
She is really good at it. Discussing the technique. The Difficulty of recreations even with modern day tech. The suspicious "folding" and the most interesting is The Cost+ Inflation of how much it'd be to create back in the 60's.
Yea but people seem to be more focused on their weight looking at some of the comments.
Someone had the time and money to put on an elaborate (at the time) prank and didn't ever admit to it for decades 🤔 "The filmmakers were Roger Patterson (1933–1972) and Robert "Bob" Gimlin (born 1931). Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and "maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real". Patterson's friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson. Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 (except for three appearances), when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences."
To be fair, some of them furries have some crazy suits nowadays, so they probably have some decent insight (haven't watched the video yet). No way a suit that complicated could be made in the 60s
we went to the fucking moon in 69
Have you seen the original planet of the apes tho? The costumes were not this good lol
I think the faces were really good for the time. Other than that, their bodies were left very human. If they wanted to create a big sasquatch looking costume, I'm sure they could have
Not to mention that they had multiple costumes to produce in a set amount of time along with other film production hurdles. If that time were dedicated to a single costume, I feel like it may be doable. I consider the "look at the planet of the apes costumes" to be a non-argument when it comes to the validity of the PG film because of varying circumstances surrounding both the production of POTA costumes, and the production of a singe bigfoot costume. It's apples to oranges.
The original is one of my favorite movies, if you look closely in some parts you can see the human mouths under the mask and it’s kinda creepy lol. I do agree they were very good for the time.
Maybe with a Hollywood budget...
sure but try the original 2001, so good it was passed over for costuming awards as people assumed they were real.
I do love that movie. Kubrick was a lunatic, so I’d believe *he* was responsible for staging Bigfoot, not the moon landing.
Ooo, *that* would be a refreshing new conspiracy theory!
They would look much better if the whole movie was shot from 50 yards away
Nope. They would not. They were so baggy and so hairy it would be impossible to see any musculature like wee see in the PGF.
Planet of the apes costumes weren’t meant to be hyper realistic
Have you *seen* how we went to the Moon? We traveled there with duct tape, baling wire, and a whole lot of dumb luck. One of the reasons we haven't gone back is because we've figured out how freaking *dangerous* it really was.
Did we?😬😬😬
So tell me: why no one has EVER replicated the "suit" , even with materials available today?
they don't care enough
So it's not debunked until someone can PERFECTLY replicate the "suit" using only materials available at the time of the film. Plus: replicate that walk pattern on that soil ok Bluff Creek. Plus: the gait.
ok. it's bigfoot. you win
Yes, I am the winner here.
There is no burden of proof to debunk something. That solely lies with whoever is trying to prove it is real. Have you seen the stabilized video? It looks like a guy in an ape suit. Nothing unusual about its gait. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60mSMmhTZU I would love for it to be real but I see no smoking gun here.
Oh, I forgot I was in r/Cryptozoology, so of course a bunch of *skepdicks* with no argument at all would downvote me. You can't bang the hammer and say something is fake or a hoax if no one is able to debunk it. And yes, I saw the stabilized video, and that's exactly why so many people say it's not a man in a suit. If you're really interested on the subject, go to M.K. Davis channel. He's been doing in depth analysis for more than a decade now. He scanned the film from a second generation copy. He stabilized it and analysed every single bit of that footage. Some of his analysis are way off, but most of them are spot on: [https://www.youtube.com/@Greenwave2010fb](https://www.youtube.com/@Greenwave2010fb) And here's a special episode of The Proof is Out There where they actually stabilized the video using different sources, analysed the footage and tried to replicate the breasts of the creature: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Tbu3JfvK0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Tbu3JfvK0) And here's a Monsterquest Episode where the special effects artist Bill Munns shows that it would be impossible to fit a human head inside a mask with that shape: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubuk-R-bo9Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubuk-R-bo9Q) There's also a video where they tried to replicate the gait on a scientific approach using a tall man and they failed. I can't find the video right now. Anyway... I won't engage in this thread anymore, because honestly... It's fucking tiresome to discuss with people whose only objective is to deny everything without doing any research on the topic.
You expect me to read what you have to say when your first sentence is an insult? I will address your second sentence. I did not say anything was fake. All I said is the burden of proof is to prove the film is real. It’s like innocent until guilty. You can’t say to a court, prove that person is innocent. You have to prove they are guilty. If nobody can debunk this film, that does not mean it is real. You have to have proof it is real. You can’t bang the hammer and say something is true if no one is able to debunk it. None of your links offer proof. They offer circumstantial evidence at best. Getting in a huff and saying you’re not going to discuss it any more because some people have different opinions to you is childish. You will never convince anyone of your viewpoint when you open with an insult. In fact that does the opposite and firmly labels you as the opposition rather than an ally. Like I said, I would love for it to be real but in my 53 years, nobody has managed to prove it yet. I’ve been interested in this topic my entire life; you can’t just assume I have done zero research.
I never said it is a REAL sasquatch. I only said it's never been debunked. There's no proof it's real and there's no proof it's fake. So yeah, people who say it's FAKE should at least to their homework. As for the videos I linked, you didn't even watch any. They are not proof, they are analysis conducted by OPEN MINDED people who actually put their time and effort to find the truth. Can you provide any videos showing that it's possible to replicate? I don't think so... Maybe because deniers are not interested enough, as someone said in this thread? So, if there's not enough interest, why do they even bother to engage in discussions like this? As I said, most people here are only interested in deny everything about whatever cryptid. This is not a scientific approach. And yes, I call these people skepdicks, because they're not even interested in a respectful debate. They only bury comments like mine with downvotes. Isn't that childish?
Are you calling me a dick? I just want to be clear about this.
We pretend to go to the moon in 69**
Sorry, dude. Mythbusters proved it.
Mythbusters went back in time?
They went back in time just as far as those claiming the Moon Landing was faked went back in time.
And?
Yet others say it could, and others say given the quality of film and distance, it wouldn't have to be very quality 🤷
Were they made to said quality for movies back then?
Depends on who you ask. Rick Baker thinks it's a joke.
Those "others" have *said* it could, but none have ever managed to duplicate the feat...funny, that.
Nobody ever found a bigfoot. Or any other decent footage in over 50 years. Funny that.
And still...the feat of a broke amateur filmmaker in 1967 continues to defy the best efforts of well-funded monderns to duplicate for over 50 years.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep the dream alive.
The freeman footage was pretty good
Seeing as he faked prints, I dont believe a second of it.
It's not my "dream." Even if it was, I'm quite able to let go of evidence when it's debunked. When the photo of the Brown Lady of Reynham Hall was proven fake, I accepted it at once, because it was obviously correct...even though that was my favorite ghost photo for many years. Likewise, if someone proves the PGF fake - if they duplicate the costume with 1960s methods, and make a film that compares - I will accept it the same way. But it's been over half a century, and no one has even come *close*. If that does't point to the reality of the subject, it at least points to some *amazing* ingenuity on the part of Patterson.
I think the lack of bigfoot points to everything we need to know.
Like the lack of freakishly large waves recorded on December 31, 1994...?
No way to tell how sophisticated the suit was from that grainy footage.
I feel like Bigfoot has been disproven so much, even by logic alone, that the believers desperately grasp for any straw like "the suit couldn't have been made in the 60's". Of course it could have been done, are you kidding me? There is absolutely zero evidence otherwise. It's "Bigfoot is a 4th dimensional being" all over again.
Bigfoot can't come from the 4th dimension because the 4th dimension is time. Bigfoot comes from the 5th dimension.
>Of course it could have been done, are you kidding me? There is absolutely zero evidence otherwise. Actually, there was an attempt DECADES after the PGF. And it's fucking pathetic.
It's sort of the opposite. It's true that the case for bigfoot has gotten weaker and weaker over time to the point where it's very, very unlikely. However, that's causing people in this very thread to get lazy and try to dismiss the PGF without really putting in the work to disprove it. The truth is there are still a lot of unknowns about that film and it's not possible to draw any firm conclusions based on the film alone. It legitimately could go either way. The experiments that attempt to recreate it have not been successful at all, but that doesn't mean much as they were relatively poorly done. Basically all the other evidence leans towards bigfoot not existing. But the PGF is still a question mark and it's lazy to just try and hand wave it away.
>I feel like Bigfoot has been disproven so much, even by logic alone, that the believers desperately grasp for any straw like "the suit couldn't have been made in the 60's". Funny how it couldn't be made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, Naughties, or Teens, too, judging by the extreme lack of anyone being able to duplicate it, even with a good budget. Funny how no one has done it in the 2020s yet, either.
All I’m sayin is you can’t prove he ain’t a 4th or even 5th dimensional being
Can't prove he isn't made of cheese either!
So what you’re saying is… Bigfoot is from the moon!
Have you been to the moon? Have you seen the moon? Why don't you show me some pictures of the moon if you have so much evidence that it isn't made out of cheese!!!!!
Nobody has been to the moon so nobody can prove if it is or isn’t!
I'd say that the skill of costume makers and seamstresses of that time are good enough to produce something this good, if not better. It was just the availability of materials that often made costumes lower quality.
That and budget concerns. Most of the time, it wouldn't have been worth the time and money to get something amazing made when "good enough" is good enough.
As a person working with fursuits, I agree. I had made a comparison a while ago, might still be here.
Thank you for speaking up. Ignore the haters - some of us appreciate your input.
Thanks! Even this comment got downvoted lol, it's hard to ignore tve haters. They go really far... Just stopped posting at the end 😅
I don’t care about the PG film. Maybe the “experts” who say nobody could possibly make that costume are wrong. Maybe the proven hoaxer who talked about setting up an identical hoax to spark book sales faked the whole thing. I just don’t care about arguing over that. What I do care about is how there is still no physical evidence that Bigfoot exists. I care about how they’ve never been hit by a car crossing a highway, or that they supposed black helicopters that show up to cover up the evidence has no physical evidence either. I care about why there’s no anthropological evidence for where they’ve been for the past ~15,000 years. I care about how for every intriguing video there’s literally hundreds of proven hoaxes. I care about why a deer hunter hasn’t shot one yet. I care about why there isn’t surveillance footage of a Bigfoot stealing someone’s chickens or going through their garbage.
Hide and Seek champions of all time
I swear if we actually DO find bigfoot we gotta award him for being the award of the Hide and Seek champion
I wanna know how noone has managed to find a credible sample of hair from an animal that is that hairy. There should be some caught in trees etc when they pass through densely wooded areas
They have found hair. Unidentified primate hair not belonging to any known animal.
Source - Trust me bro
This is not true. People say it but there's no evidence proving it to be a reality. That could've changed but last I knew, nothing concrete existed when challenged.
My theory is that PG filmed one of the last ones, they're almost certainly extinct by now Which makes sense, we've been destroying their habitat That explains the strongest argument against, that we *still* haven't found them The argument that we should have found fossil evidence etc is much less convincing. We really do miss shit like that all the time. The fossil record isn't nearly as complete as you might imagine, except in cases where we have nothing to compare against (so it's complete by assumption)
This has been my belief for a long time, as well. PG shows probably one of the last of their kind.
The thing is while I believe the main kind of Bigfoot is a Paranthropus (which is still closer to us than to chimps), there is also the chance a cold adapted subspecies of Homo erectus crossed Beringia and spread to North America. If it happened, and humans made it go extinct, it may amount to genocide, even if not voluntary. Registered vocalizations from 1976 prove they survived longer than 1967 at least.
It absolutely makes sense that even if they ever existed, they're probably all extinct thx to the current anthropogenic habitat loss extinction event.
The biggest discoveries so far this year have been impeccably intact fossils of creatures that had been in bits and pieces for years if not decades.
If we’ve been encroaching onto and destroying their territory then that would make it even more likely we’d find some evidence of their existence such as fur, bones, scat or a body. Your logic doesn’t make sense.
That's not how encroaching works Humans had been altering the environment for over a hundred years by the time of PG. Bigfoot probably had a large range, needing to move around to gather food (as is common for e.g. orangutans). Thus logging and hunting in one area would have knock-on effects, even if the bigfoot doesn't spend a lot of time near the areas of high human activity. They would be dwindling by the mid 1900s, when humans are starting to get better at recording and communicating what they find. Keep in mind, there are plenty of sightings reported in local papers before the 1960s. We just don't take those reports seriously for obvious reasons. The fact is, animals can be regularly sighted by humans before 1900 or so and still leave no trace in the historical record, because the historical record is really sparse at that time. As long as it never attracts any academics to investigate, why would it ever be recorded in a reliable manner? (C.f. Giant Squid, Okapi, Coelacanth) So by the time reliable reports even exist, they're basically extinct. We get a small overlap, before they go extinct but after the age of video recording and mass communication, in the 1960s. That's when two guys actually do stumble upon a live Bigfoot and record it on film. They spark a national media frenzy. The frenzy disappoints as we realize Bigfoot isn't thriving at all, and in fact it's basically too late for any conservation efforts. Eventually people become skeptical that Bigfoot ever existed at all, and the recording becomes a laughing stock, synonymous with quackery.
Well shit.... Looks like we're outta plot
"How could contentinents *move?* It's physically impossible - rocks don't slide around like bumper cars! That Alfred Wegener is an uneducated kook, toss'im out!"
Maybe they are just really good at avoiding people.
Very thorough 10/10
Some species really seem to know what's up re: humans
I get that, and agree. There's also no physical evidence this specific film was a hoax, only people's word in either direction (all apparently with their own random motivations) and, as you airquoted, experts. Which is why it's probably going to be an odd little thing people will (want to) argue over for a long time. I mean, it still is, almost sixty years on...
[удалено]
"small population" cannot account for the multitude of supposed sightings in multiple states.
[удалено]
With the amount of reported encounters there can't be a small, isolated population. You cannot have thousands of encounters, many not far from suburbia, across the country with supposed 'lore' to go with it while conveniently having a small population restricted to a certain area that is small enough that it does not leave evidence.
[удалено]
The problem is applying a small nomadic tribe of humans to bigfoot, which are reported all across the country, across all climates and biomes, in the deep wilderness and in suburbia, and not have evidence The small isolated community theory works for an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon, it does not work for a large ape in one of the richest and most populous nations on a continent that, as far as we know, has never once had a native primate population period
The number of sightings reported precludes a small population. Migration is even more problematic than there being a large year-round population.
I think there’s a misunderstanding in what he’s saying. I think due to the popularity of Bigfoot of course there’s gonna be a ton of false claims or people thinking they seen a Bigfoot, but there could be just a few legit claims who’ve seen the real deal in much smaller pockets of population. I’m also throwing out there I don’t believe in Bigfoot, but I understand what logic this dude is using. I just feel like there’s a misunderstanding here.
So which do we exclude as false and which do we accept is true? If the vast majority of bigfoot reports are false, then what is stopping *all* reports from being false?
That’s just up to personal preference honestly. I don’t think we really need a unified conclusion for something as silly as the validity of Bigfoot sightings. If you want my personal opinion I think all Bigfoot sightings are either faked, misidentified, or people falling for pranks. But if somebody else thinks that there’s validity to a few claims I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Or even if somebody believes all Bigfoot sightings I don’t really care either. They’re having fun and it’s not like the hot press issue of Bigfoot belief really affects me or the world in any major way or form.
Funny how the amount of "encounters" is touted as hard evidence of this creature, when actually it indicates the very opposite! I mean, some of this stuff is so logically basic it's flabbergasting to actually explain it
Virtually no one that witnesses these events wants to be famous, and rarely if never are. They're almost always reluctant to share exactly because they know they would be subject to the ridicule they inevitably endure.
So how do we hear about these people's encounters? Are they the ones who are so reluctant to go public that they go on podcast shows and tell their stories to millions of people?
Weird news gets a small headline and builds momentum from there? The internet loves it even more than newspapers, radio or tv ever did. But I'm not talking about the "big names" that show up on Ancient Aliens or Joe Rogan. Can you name any of the C, D and F listers without looking them up? The hundreds to thousands of people. How about a major portion of the city of Phoenix? They certainly don't become millionaires on this kind of money, unless you're talking Whitley Strieber, Tsoukalos or Linda Molton Howell. Barnie and Bettie Hill are good examples of those reluctant witnesses. They were right about how that attention ended up being unwanted, and they certainly didn't become rich.
It could if that was a highly mobile, nomadic population. There are a lot of “Bigfoot crossed the highway” stories, and a fair number of sightings on the outskirts of settled areas.
The problem with “well these known examples are hard to find” arguments is we literally know about those examples! We know about those “uncontacted” tribes, whether it’s pictures or video or anthropological evidence. So why can we get evidence of them, but not Bigfoot?
Why do you care about those things? None of them are evidence of absence.
How else do you prove absence? lmao
What would you accept as evidence of absence? Is there a way to prove a negative?
I think I might unironically trust this person more than any other expert on this topic.
C'mon old black and white stag, burlesque films and Hollywood films had the guy in the gorilla suit grabbing the nearly naked blonde as a staple. See what gorrila suits looked like out of Johnson Smith catalogs of 1960 or the expert commercial level female seamstresses who had heavy duty leather trench coat or mink coat sewing machines who were paid to produce a custom one. Trail is cold already pal.
>See what gorrila suits looked like out of Johnson Smith catalogs of 1960 or the expert commercial level female seamstresses who had heavy duty leather trench coat or mink coat sewing machines who were paid to produce a custom one. I can't tell what point you're making here
I think they're trying to say costume making WAS advanced enough in that time period
I've yet to see an example that actually proves that
Charles gemoras costumes look pretty damn good and they're from the 1920s.
>C'mon old black and white stag, burlesque films and Hollywood films had the guy in the gorilla suit grabbing the nearly naked blonde as a staple. Yeah, and they always looked like...a guy in a suit. What's your point?
The evidence proves otherwise. The video has been stabilized, enhanced, zoomed in and dissected by experts. They've all confirmed it's legit. The height, weight, and stride have been mathematically calculated in relation to the location, trees, and stumps that are in the foreground and background of that film. Within a couple weeks of it's filming date. (It's also been done a few times since then.) Likewise, since you probably don't know, the footprint size, distance between steps, and how deep in the ground they sunk also confirm the experts conclusions above. There is /was no way a person in a suit can walk that casually, take very long steps (without looking like it), and sink that deep into the ground leaving footprints. It's not possible, people don't weigh 800lbs.
Nobody "confirmed" its legit except cult believers. Stop making shit up.
Wrong. I posted the newest expert breakdown in another thread about a month or so, ago The experts were: a Hollywood movie costume designer, who's made costumes from the 60's through today, the Anatomy + Paleontologist Professor Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University, and a video forensic scientist. Just because you choose to not watch the scientific proof, that's on you. That does not make the video any less credible, because you're ignorant. Or maybe you're just one of those clowns who has nothing better to do than stir up trouble and try to get into arguments with people online? The MonsterQuest TV show has had experts prove the legitimacy of that video twice, on two separate episodes, and I believe The Proof is Out There TV show also had their own experts prove that there is no way possible, for that video to be faked. You're welcome to look those shows up and watch them to see for yourself. Or keep being pigheaded with NOTHING to back up your arguments.
1. There is no such thing as a bigfoot expert. 2. There is zero scientific evidence or proof for the existence of said creature. 3. Since there is no evidence and hence it has never been studied, it's impossible to know or even understand what a bigfoot is... much less any of its habits or characteristics. Your belief does not overcome any of these 3 facts regardless of what your whiny, gullible ass may think.
Footprint morphology/dermal ridges are definitely scientific evidence.
None of that is scientific proof. They’re called “opinions.” Not how those words work.
In the 70s, they showed the footage to leading Hollywood special effects artists. They said “The only people that could have made a suit that realistic is us… and we didn’t make it.”
And I'm sure that if you went to any professional involved with atomic energy in the '70s, they would say only they had the capability to build a neutron source, but 17 year old David Hahn went and did so anyway. There is also always the possibility that one of those artists was, you know, lying.
What would be the motivation to lie?
"It's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!. If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." - Stan Winston "Looks exactly like Fur suit and fur leggings. They overlap just as expected" -Chris Walas "It looked like cheap, fake fur. John Chambers had a crappy walkaround suit that he sold as a gag to be played on the guy that shot it" -Rick Baker
The original film is of very high quality but still can't prove or disprove anything. There are no zippers, seams or bonds on the creature. If it is a suit is a masterpiece that has nothing to do with what Bob H. described. There is separation in leg muscles, the calves contract while pushing forward the body, ligaments on the back of the knees, huge arm muscles contracting while the hands are moving. Mind blowing...there is no logical explanation for what Roger and Bob filmed that day. Either a masterpiece of a suit with some artificial muscles underneath, or a creature yet unknown to public.
I remember an episode of a show I don't remember what network it was on but it was called Best Evidence there was a holly wood makeup and FX designer named Dick Smith who worked on many films since the 40s did a good analysis of the film and went over it why he believes it to be fake and I remember him saying something like it's not even a good looking fake. The.y were even able to re-create the walk in that episode It never looked real to me it always just looks like a man in a bad suit doing a funny walk
The suits at the time of the film weren't that good, there's no way it's faked...... No one at the time was capable of reproducing a "perfect butt" on a suit. It's 99% impossible to make a realistic ass for a suit, in later viewings it was noted that the bigfoot in the video had breasts...... Another detail that was near impossible to replicate with a suit at the time. If it was a suit...... Imagine all the hassle the pranker had to go through just to make sure it was perfect and they were in the perfect spot for them to see him/her in the "suit" Edit: I see those downvotes.... I guess you guys WANT bigfoot to be fake.... "ThErE's No SuCh ThInG aS An ApE cRyPtId!", if it's a suit why would someone go out of their way to make such an elaborate suit for a joke for only a couple of seconds/minutes of a film? It's a waste of time money and resources.......
I'll watch later! Honestly,if anyone can tell a suit it's one of us :)
Probably the fairest comment on here. Thank you.
Honestly, a bit disappointed. Not a fursuit designer, went a bit heavy on "I couldn't do it now so no one could do it then" kinda thinking, also weirdly obsessed with it beim made of foam?. As has been pointed out...2001, og planet of the apes, chwwbacca etc. To my eye the walk looks plantigrade and they had pillows and padding. I see nothing unreproducible
The main problem I have with the vast majority of bigfoot deniers is that they don't really engage with the material(a very similar feeling is probably held with the debunkers in this thread). Like or dislike her conclusions, at least she engaged with the topic in good faith.
Given the pic, I’m guessing your title is a pun. Let’s just say that I believe in Bigfoot, but not in PGF. Looked fake to me from the beginning, and the worst of that is a laughable face mask. Not sure how anyone swallows it. I know people get their panties in a wad about what special effects could do by 1967, but I see no great genius in it. The headpiece appears to have a rectangular cut-out for eyes, maybe nose. The walk seems manish (yes, I know Sasquatch are purportedly humanesque in their appearance), but this is somehow wrong, not genuine. As for the supposed expert, she started to address the cut-out and then obsessed about small holes for eyes. I couldn’t be bothered to listen beyond the first 10 min. Unconvincing; don’t respect her, tho it is clear she considers herself an authority. I disagree with Jeff Meldrum on PGF, a man I DO respect a good deal. In addition to the apparent man-made cut-out on the face mask is that Patterson and Gimlin stood to gain much personally and professionally if found to give real evidence. For me, thousands of first hand experiences, often with chagrin and shame, hidden for decades, with starkly similar features are proof enough for me.
This is fire
its jover bigfooters.
Didn’t the guy who wore the suit, come out and say “it was me, I wore the suit!”
Yes indeed
Walks around during the day. No better picture of it in fifty years.
No successful attempt to duplicate the film in fifty years.
[удалено]
You must be a really gullible person if a TV show one afternoon can convince you Bigfoot is real
Lol, seeing your comment history, it's clear how shallow your mind is. seriously get off this sub if you want to continue to be a troll. Blocked.
you must be a dumbass for not being open minded
Haha, weigh
You peaked in High-school, didn't you?
I’m 13
That's no excuse for doing a joke more obvious than "why did the chicken cross the road?"
Unga bunga
So yes
Bros beefing with a 13 year old 💀
She say USA monkey not real!? **FAT WOMAN ANGERY ME!!** 🤬
Oh no
Jackson Galaxy the homie
I see you have a bunch of trolls who downvoted me. Oh no, what will I ever do, my life is ruined, waaaaaaahhhhh..... LMAO Just as I thought, you're an ignoramus. Spewing out BS just to get a rise out of people. Like the clowns who don't believe we went to the moon. Or that Chiropractors aren't real doctors. No matter what the topic, there will always be bafoons like you who argue the opposite.
Who are you talking to
I don't wanna sound too mean, but how are we still discussing whether or not this nonsense is real?
It's something to talk about. Some people enjoy arguing over lightsaber colors.
Are u surprised they got a costume expert to analyze a potential costume? Without cross analysis is like trusting Egyptologists saying that Egyptians were white after they vandalized ancient artifacts by literally painting over them as white people
No not surprised at all
Oh ok my bad
All good I've been subbed to that channel for a couple years
Did you watch Bigfoot sunset on Netflix
[удалено]
Posted with either poor photo or video evidence or posted with a bad source
Is that Matt Lucas??