Fascinating book about people around the world disappearing in mysterious ways in parks...
- Thread starter The Jewnited States
- Start date
infamousred
All Star
Let's follow the timeline:
1966: Roger Patterson puts out a self-published book "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?"
May 1967: Patterson goes out in the woods to make a "Docu-drama" about about cowboys being led by an old miner and a "wise Indian tracker" on a hunt for Bigfoot. In order to fake the bigfoot scenes, Patterson acquires a fake Bigfoot suit from Phillip Morris of "Morris Costumes".
October 1967: Patterson goes out to a place where "Bigfoot footprints" had been found (Later, Ray Wallace's family admitted that he had faked the footprints to please Patterson). While out in the woods in broad daylight, a "real Bigfoot" just happens to run by.
Just happens to run by the very man who already had self-published a book on Bigfoot, made a movie on Bigfoot, and owned a Bigfoot suit.
And you believe this shyt.
And in the next 50 years, when everyone and their mama has a camera on them by now, no one can get better footage.
Here is the Patterson footage, when Bigfoot just happened to walk by his already set-up movie camera:
And of course, that blurry shyt of a man in a monkey costume would have been impossible to fake in the late 1960s.
It's not like 2001: A Space Odessy didn't come out that same year or anything.
The words of the guy who made the suit himself:
So you decided to type all of this on the internet without checking any of the scientific anaysis of the film?
Then you quote a man that got caught 3 different times lying about the supposed suit???
Your typical coli poster...thinking they know more than a fukking scientist
So you decided to type all of this on the internet without checking any of the scientific anaysis of the film?
Then you quote a man that got caught 3 different times lying about the supposed suit???
Your typical coli poster...thinking they know more than a fukking scientist
Wait, you're using my LACK OF BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT to claim that I'm a "typical coli poster" who thinks I know more than scientists?
p.s. - I have my own example of a missing person's case.
When I was 13, my friend's dad disappeared. We got the call within hours of it happening. His fishing boat had been found on the river, empty. He was nowhere to be seen.
They searched for days, dredged the river, searched the banks, talked to people in nearby towns. Nothing.
As the days went by, it began to look more and more like he'd never be found. They held a memorial service and everyone was bawling except for my family. I don't know what it was, but something about the whole thing didn't feel right to us. We didn't say shyt to anyone though because it wouldn't have been appropriate.
About six months or so later, he was officially declared dead, unusual because no body had been found but they did it for legal reasons and to help the family move on.
Ten years later.
Yeah, ten fukking years later.
We get a phone call from another mutual friend of the family. My friend's dad had just called his sister. He admitted that he was alive, and living in some tiny ass town in freaking Idaho. He had ran off with a younger woman and faked his death because he couldn't handle telling his family. He couldn't get a job or shyt or do anything because he had no way to get legal identification, so the woman he had run off with had been supporting the both of them. Somehow they started going to a local church, the pastor could figure that something weird was going on, he befriended the guy, eventually got him to confess his whole story, and eventually got him to realize that he had to admit to his family what had gone on.
Point of the story? People disappear for all sorts of damn reasons. Some are kidnapped or murdered. Some just plain get lost. Some people want to commit suicide but don't want anyone to know about it. And some people just don't want to be found. There ain't no massive trend or massive conspiracy - out of 300,000,000 people in this country, having 300 of them disappear in a national park somewhere isn't some crazy trend. It's literally one in a million.
And it ain't cause of Bigfoot.
When I was 13, my friend's dad disappeared. We got the call within hours of it happening. His fishing boat had been found on the river, empty. He was nowhere to be seen.
They searched for days, dredged the river, searched the banks, talked to people in nearby towns. Nothing.
As the days went by, it began to look more and more like he'd never be found. They held a memorial service and everyone was bawling except for my family. I don't know what it was, but something about the whole thing didn't feel right to us. We didn't say shyt to anyone though because it wouldn't have been appropriate.
About six months or so later, he was officially declared dead, unusual because no body had been found but they did it for legal reasons and to help the family move on.
Ten years later.
Yeah, ten fukking years later.
We get a phone call from another mutual friend of the family. My friend's dad had just called his sister. He admitted that he was alive, and living in some tiny ass town in freaking Idaho. He had ran off with a younger woman and faked his death because he couldn't handle telling his family. He couldn't get a job or shyt or do anything because he had no way to get legal identification, so the woman he had run off with had been supporting the both of them. Somehow they started going to a local church, the pastor could figure that something weird was going on, he befriended the guy, eventually got him to confess his whole story, and eventually got him to realize that he had to admit to his family what had gone on.
Point of the story? People disappear for all sorts of damn reasons. Some are kidnapped or murdered. Some just plain get lost. Some people want to commit suicide but don't want anyone to know about it. And some people just don't want to be found. There ain't no massive trend or massive conspiracy - out of 300,000,000 people in this country, having 300 of them disappear in a national park somewhere isn't some crazy trend. It's literally one in a million.
And it ain't cause of Bigfoot.
The Jewnited States
Superstar
First, it's relevant because it speaks to his credibility. He has no special information with missing persons, no special experience. There are tens of thousands of Americans who know a lot more about these cases then he does. He's just the kind of guy who self-publishes books with wild theories and makes wild claims in order to bring attention to himself.
Yeah, when a person goes missing, it's creepy. We have a natural tendency to want things to be solved, to want to know what happened. But the world is a BIG place. These are BIG pieces of wilderness. shyt happens. People disappear. Sometimes it's foul play and sometimes it's an accident and sometimes it's someone who wandered off and didn't want to be found.
Second, he clearly is trying to tie the two things together. On the surface, there's an obvious discrepancy in logic that doesn't make sense. How can he claim that tens of thousands of Bigfoot live in America and non one EVER finds them, but then be surprised that a person goes missing in the same wilderness here and there? If the forest is big enough to hide tens of thousands of Bigfoot without any scientists ever being able to find them, then it's obviously big enough for a person to get lost, or killed, and not be found.
But the Bigfoot connection is clear if you look at what he does. I've
1. His map of "missing persons clusters" is very suggestive (It matches the "Bigfoot sightings map")
2. He ignores the many missing persons cases that occur in cities and on water, instead only discusses the ones in the forest (because that's where Bigfoot supposedly is)
3. He claims that "dogs with owners" are involved in many of the disappearances. (because people have claimed elsewhere that Bigfoot doesn't like dogs)
4. He claims that tracking dogs "refuse to track" the missing person (suggesting that they're scared of sometime...like a Bigfoot)
5. He claims that major storms often develop after the disapparance (elsewhere, people claim Bigfoot can control local weather)
6. He claims the disappearances often happen near swampy or very brushy areas, or near boulderfields. (all places he claims in his other books that Bigfoot can hide)
7. He claims clothing was taken off of many victims. (Implying that an outside thing, like Bigfoot, did something to them)
8. He claims that berries were present in many cases (elsewhere, he claims that berries are a favorite food of Bigfoot).
I mean, seriously, berries?
NO ONE in their right mind actually thinks that there is some special correlation between "missing persons" and "berries", other than the fact that the woods are full of berries and people sometimes go into the woods to pick them.
The ONLY reason that David Paulides is making up a ridiculous correlation between berries and missing people, and all those other cherry-picked correlations, is because he wants to suggest that Bigfoot has something to do with it.
But he doesn't "say Bigfoot" straight up because he knows that would turn off 50% of his audience, and because he wants to pretend to be "objective" and "scientific".
You do realize his most recent book is purely focused on people (mostly college aged kids) going missing in cities?
Idk breh just from what I've read and heard so far, he will never say he thinks it's Bigfoot, last interview I heard from him he went out of his way to say he doesn't think it's Bigfoot. If anything I think this stuff could be tied in with aliens than Bigfoot.
He also talked about the possibility of cloaking technology being used in some of these cases. (Elisa lam and some other broad who went missing in 2014). He referenced a book which sort of mentions the technology(cameleo I think? I'll look it up later), while obviously not in the hands of any common people, it is quite possibly in the hands of the military. It would explain why Elisa lam appeared to be talking to someone who wasn't there and why the other broad from 2014 was heard talking to someone else in the house on her 911 call and her roommate in the background can be heard yelling at her (THERES NO ONE ELSE HERE!). They say some people can see through it and some can't. Look back at the excerpts in the OP with that in mind.
now I know that shyt sounds crazy but just consider it a possibility. If you watch the Elisa lam video with that theory in the back of your mind it starts to put a whole new perspective on the case. Just imagine if all of this shyt is tied in with the military trying out new technology or weapons or stealth or ways to kill people and not leave a trace (for future assassinations). Perhaps that's why the parks are so hush hush about the missing people.
In terms of his new book about people disappearing in cities, I haven't read the book yet but I've seen some stories from it. In one of the cases a dude ended up being found dead in a river miles away, his wallet and phone were found on the way there. However he was last seen at a bar that night with many friends there as witnesses. When the detectives looked at the CCTV footage, they never saw him actually leave the bar nor was he seen on any traffic cams walking back home and then one mile past his home where he was eventually found dead. It's just some trippy ass shyt. I don't claim to know anything with any certainty, I'm just saying that something is definitely off about these cases. They don't make sense logically and they all show up in the papers from what I've seen so I know it's not fake.
If MKULTRA or COINTELPRO was never declassified/leaked, would you have believed it? Believed the government was actively drugging innocent civilians and trying to master mind control? Building Manchurian candidates? I'm just saying theres no answer to all this shyt and every theory as to what's happening could be seen as just as much "bullshyt" as the thought of Bigfoot snatching them. But what can't be disputed is that many of these cases are legitimately baffling and make you wonder WTF really happened. I just read this shyt with an open mind and consider the possibilities. So it's not Bigfoot taking people and it's actually the government getting human guinea pigs for experiments, does that make it any more believable? Why or why not?
infamousred
All Star
Are you retarded?Wait, you're using my LACK OF BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT to claim that I'm a "typical coli poster" who thinks I know more than scientists?
You keep ducking the fact that many scientists have analyzed and done reports on this film and never once called it a hoax. It's always the "Bigfoot couldn't possibly exist crowd"So once again...do you know more than a scientist? You're trying to focus on everything else besides the data...which is the film
"B-b-but a guy said"
Are you retarded?
So once again...do you know more than a scientist? You're trying to focus on everything else besides the data...which is the film
"B-b-but a guy said"
You're wrong. It takes five second of wikipedia to figure that out.
"Bernard Heuvelmans—a zoologist and the so-called "father of cryptozoology"—thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human.[200][201][202] He objected to the film subject's hair-flow pattern as being too uniform; to the hair on the breasts as not being like a primate; to its buttocks as being insufficiently separated; and to its too-calm retreat from the pursuing men."
"Prominent primate expert John Napier (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program) was one of the few mainstream scientists not only to critique the Patterson–Gimlin film but also to study then-available Bigfoot evidence in a generally sympathetic manner, in his 1973 book, Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality.
Napier conceded the likelihood of Bigfoot as a real creature, stating, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists."[213] But he argued against the film being genuine: "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis."[214] Napier gives several reasons for his and other's skepticism[215] that are commonly raised, but apparently his main reasons are original with him. First, the length of "the footprints are totally at variance with its calculated height."[216] Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.[217]"
"Esteban Sarmiento is a specialist in physical anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. He has 25 years of experience with great apes in the wild. He writes,[220] "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."[221] His most original criticism is this: "The plantar surface of the feet is decidedly pale, but the palm of the hand seems to be dark. There is no mammal I know of in which the plantar sole differs so drastically in color from the palm."[222] (But see Meldrum, 170–71.) His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."[223]"
"When anthropologists David J. Daegling of the University of Florida and Daniel O. Schmitt examined the film, they concluded it was impossible to conclusively determine if the subject in the film is nonhuman, and additionally argued that flaws in the studies by Krantz and others invalidated their claims. Daegling and Schmitt noted problems of uncertainties in the subject and camera positions, camera movement, poor image quality, and artifacts of the subject. They concluded: "Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence."[226]
Daegling has asserted that the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"].""
Here's just an investigator who had never made a suit before talking about how he was able to mimic the suit, the gait, and everything else in the film.
More people mimic the Bigfoot walk on their own.
Last edited:
Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film
on its 30th Anniversary
By Mark Chorvinsky
OCTOBER 1997: Thirty years ago---on October 20, 1967--Yakima, Washington resident Roger Patterson, then 34, and his tracking assistant Bob Gimlin, then 36, emerged from the Bluff Creek area of northern California with a strip of colored 16mm film of what many have taken to be a female Bigfoot.
This short film has provided evidence for those who believe in Bigfoot and is arguably the most famous film clip purporting to demonstrate the existence of unknown creatures. It has been featured in numerous television shows and films and ads, on the cover of books and magazines, and now on web sites. The Patterson film has been one of the major pillars of belief in Bigfoot for the past 30 years. When people think of "Bigfoot," the creature in the film often comes to mind.
Bluff Creek, where the famous Patterson film was taken, is a sacred spot to the Bigfoot enthusiast. It is also the site of the 1958 Birth of Bigfoot case, which is severely tainted by the presence of Ray and Wilbur Wallace. Ray Wallace of Tacoma Washington is a problematic character. He is a known hoaxer responsible for numerous Bigfoot films, photographs, tape recordings, fake footprints, and artifacts. I have written a number of articles about Ray Wallace and the 1958 Bluff Creek Birth of Bigfoot case, bringing great doubt upon the case in which Bigfoot was named and entered the public consciousness on a large scale.
If the Bluff Creek Birth of Bigfoot case was the work of the Wallaces (Ray's brother Roy was accused by the local police at the time), then later cases that occur in that area should be highly suspect. Ray Wallace has claimed that he knows who was in the Patterson suit. He will not give a name, but says that the person in the suit was a Yakima Indian.
Wallace also says that he told Roger Patterson where to film his Bigfoot. "Roger Patterson came [over] dozens of times pumping me on this Bigfoot," Ray Wallace explained to researcher Dennis Pilichis in 1982. " I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me that he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there just exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.' I told him where the trail was that went down to where that big rock was.I told him where he could get those pictures down there. Bluff Creek."
All of Wallace's claims are suspect, but there is no doubt that Patterson met with Wallace to get information, as Wallace says. We know that Patterson visited Wallace--Patterson writes about it in his own book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (Yakima, Washington: Franklin Press, Inc., 1966, pp. 63-64.) And we know that Patterson took his films at one of Wallace's favorite Bigfoot spots: Bluff Creek, the site of previous alleged Wallace hoaxes. In short, the Patterson film was taken on the location of a known serial hoaxer.
Ray Wallace has also circulated questionable Bigfoot photos that bear some resemblance to the Patterson creature (see Mark Chorvinsky, "New Bigfoot Photo Investigation," Strange Magazine 13, Spring 1994, pp.10-11, 51). Wallace has at least one and more likely two Bigfoot suits that he has used for photographs, and had the funds to commission others. At this time it is unknown if Wallace was involved in a hoax with Patterson or hoaxed Patterson.
If there was a hoax, Patterson was either hoaxer or was hoaxed. If he was the hoaxer, what would his Bigfoot have looked like? I would suggest that Patterson's own drawings of Bigfoots for his book may be early designs for the subject of the film that he would take the next year. If Patterson was to have a suit fabricated, he would have rendered a drawing of what he wanted and given it to someone who could fabricate the suit. That drawing would have been an example of what Patterson thought a Bigfoot looked like.
Patterson was strongly influenced by the earlier 1955 William Roe case in eastern British Columbia involving a female Bigfoot.
Roe's description of the creature that he saw is very similar to the subject of the Patterson film, as are numerous aspects of the encounter. Consider the following from Roe: "...as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female...Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip...its arms were much thicker than a man's arms and longer reaching almost to its knees..[T]he nose was broad and flat..the hair that covered it (the face), leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth nose and ears...its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man's I have ever seen...It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face... [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come...again turning its head to look in my direction."
In his book, Patterson illustrates a scene from the Roe case that might as well be the design for what would later be the Patterson film. The resemblance is striking: the position and stance of the creature in the frame, the much-discussed hairy breasts, the general form of the creature, etc. suggest that this illustration was the storyboard for what would later become known as the Patterson film.
Indeed, when we peruse Patterson's book we find one illustration in particular that could explain one aspect of the Patterson Bigfoot: its large hirsute breasts. How many of us would have designed a Bigfoot with breasts like the one in the Patterson film? Some have suggested that the female nature of the Bigfoot in the Patterson film mitigates in favor of its reality in that it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have created such a Bigfoot. Patterson has drawings of two female Bigfoots in his book.
If the cultural transmission of Bigfoot/Sasquatch belief is at the heart of the Bigfoot phenomenon, as I suspect it is, then it is significant and no surprise that this image was passed on from Roe to Patterson. A comparison of Roe's daughter's drawing of Roe's Sasquatch and Patterson's female Bigfoot drawing is valuable: their strong similarity to the creature in the Patterson film demonstrates how the cultural transmission of the image of a phenomenon may be accomplished.
Some of the other problems that I have with the Patterson film include the following:
It has been suggested that the Patterson Bigfoot film was instrumental in making Bigfoot what he is today and perhaps this is not an overstatement. On its 30th birthday I toast the film that defined and cemented a phenomenal image in the public consciousness, and whose delightfully ambiguous nature will continue to be an item of great controversy for many years to come.
on its 30th Anniversary
By Mark Chorvinsky
OCTOBER 1997: Thirty years ago---on October 20, 1967--Yakima, Washington resident Roger Patterson, then 34, and his tracking assistant Bob Gimlin, then 36, emerged from the Bluff Creek area of northern California with a strip of colored 16mm film of what many have taken to be a female Bigfoot.
This short film has provided evidence for those who believe in Bigfoot and is arguably the most famous film clip purporting to demonstrate the existence of unknown creatures. It has been featured in numerous television shows and films and ads, on the cover of books and magazines, and now on web sites. The Patterson film has been one of the major pillars of belief in Bigfoot for the past 30 years. When people think of "Bigfoot," the creature in the film often comes to mind.
Bluff Creek, where the famous Patterson film was taken, is a sacred spot to the Bigfoot enthusiast. It is also the site of the 1958 Birth of Bigfoot case, which is severely tainted by the presence of Ray and Wilbur Wallace. Ray Wallace of Tacoma Washington is a problematic character. He is a known hoaxer responsible for numerous Bigfoot films, photographs, tape recordings, fake footprints, and artifacts. I have written a number of articles about Ray Wallace and the 1958 Bluff Creek Birth of Bigfoot case, bringing great doubt upon the case in which Bigfoot was named and entered the public consciousness on a large scale.
If the Bluff Creek Birth of Bigfoot case was the work of the Wallaces (Ray's brother Roy was accused by the local police at the time), then later cases that occur in that area should be highly suspect. Ray Wallace has claimed that he knows who was in the Patterson suit. He will not give a name, but says that the person in the suit was a Yakima Indian.
Wallace also says that he told Roger Patterson where to film his Bigfoot. "Roger Patterson came [over] dozens of times pumping me on this Bigfoot," Ray Wallace explained to researcher Dennis Pilichis in 1982. " I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me that he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there just exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.' I told him where the trail was that went down to where that big rock was.I told him where he could get those pictures down there. Bluff Creek."
All of Wallace's claims are suspect, but there is no doubt that Patterson met with Wallace to get information, as Wallace says. We know that Patterson visited Wallace--Patterson writes about it in his own book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (Yakima, Washington: Franklin Press, Inc., 1966, pp. 63-64.) And we know that Patterson took his films at one of Wallace's favorite Bigfoot spots: Bluff Creek, the site of previous alleged Wallace hoaxes. In short, the Patterson film was taken on the location of a known serial hoaxer.
Ray Wallace has also circulated questionable Bigfoot photos that bear some resemblance to the Patterson creature (see Mark Chorvinsky, "New Bigfoot Photo Investigation," Strange Magazine 13, Spring 1994, pp.10-11, 51). Wallace has at least one and more likely two Bigfoot suits that he has used for photographs, and had the funds to commission others. At this time it is unknown if Wallace was involved in a hoax with Patterson or hoaxed Patterson.
If there was a hoax, Patterson was either hoaxer or was hoaxed. If he was the hoaxer, what would his Bigfoot have looked like? I would suggest that Patterson's own drawings of Bigfoots for his book may be early designs for the subject of the film that he would take the next year. If Patterson was to have a suit fabricated, he would have rendered a drawing of what he wanted and given it to someone who could fabricate the suit. That drawing would have been an example of what Patterson thought a Bigfoot looked like.
Patterson was strongly influenced by the earlier 1955 William Roe case in eastern British Columbia involving a female Bigfoot.
Roe's description of the creature that he saw is very similar to the subject of the Patterson film, as are numerous aspects of the encounter. Consider the following from Roe: "...as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female...Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip...its arms were much thicker than a man's arms and longer reaching almost to its knees..[T]he nose was broad and flat..the hair that covered it (the face), leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth nose and ears...its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man's I have ever seen...It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face... [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come...again turning its head to look in my direction."
In his book, Patterson illustrates a scene from the Roe case that might as well be the design for what would later be the Patterson film. The resemblance is striking: the position and stance of the creature in the frame, the much-discussed hairy breasts, the general form of the creature, etc. suggest that this illustration was the storyboard for what would later become known as the Patterson film.
Indeed, when we peruse Patterson's book we find one illustration in particular that could explain one aspect of the Patterson Bigfoot: its large hirsute breasts. How many of us would have designed a Bigfoot with breasts like the one in the Patterson film? Some have suggested that the female nature of the Bigfoot in the Patterson film mitigates in favor of its reality in that it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have created such a Bigfoot. Patterson has drawings of two female Bigfoots in his book.
If the cultural transmission of Bigfoot/Sasquatch belief is at the heart of the Bigfoot phenomenon, as I suspect it is, then it is significant and no surprise that this image was passed on from Roe to Patterson. A comparison of Roe's daughter's drawing of Roe's Sasquatch and Patterson's female Bigfoot drawing is valuable: their strong similarity to the creature in the Patterson film demonstrates how the cultural transmission of the image of a phenomenon may be accomplished.
Some of the other problems that I have with the Patterson film include the following:
- It is problematic that various rumors persist of a person in a suit.
- The allegations by many Hollywood makeup artists that makeup master John Chambers made the suit have been snowballing since my investigation into this subject began several years ago.
- Scientifically speaking, the existence of a Bigfoot would be incredibly unlikely. As naturalist Frank Beebe noted in 1987 after seeing the film, "From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest facts to go against is that there is no evidence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere of primate (ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely primate. So either a large primate got stranded in North America-or the film is a fake." (The Times-Standard, Nov. 5, 1967)
- Despite what Bigfoot fans write in their books and articles, there are a number of negative opinions of make-up experts like Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker, Howard Berger, and many others. These make-up artists are not impressed by the subject of the Patterson film and believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise.
- Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of the science of cryptozoology and President of the International Society of Cryptozoology, believes that the film is of a man in a suit.
- The reasons that Patterson and Gimlin give for not following a Bigfoot are unconvincing. They say that they were afraid of the creature getting angry and turning on them, but they had guns to defend themselves if necessary. Why not follow the creature while maintaining a safe distance, then? It certainly was not running away from them--its pace has been described as "casual ambling." They allegedly had the object of their quest just ahead of them and they were content to take a short bit of film of their quarry and let it amble off.
- Film digitization, of which much is being currently made, is still extremely subjective and open to misinterpretation. The original film was only 16 mm and the creature takes up a small part of that already small frame. There comes a point where digitizing and blowing up the image creates another image quite different than the original, where just about anything can be found, depending one's frame of reference.
- Where was the film processed? Why is this still a mystery after all these years?
- According to Bigfoot author Barbara Wasson, "[Patterson] never went back to Bluff Creek, to any search except Thailand." If this is true, one wonders why he did not go back to the site where he actually found his quarry, unless there was really no Bigfoot there.
- Bigfoot expert Danny Perez, author of BigFootnotes and Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, writes that Roger Patterson was considered a "shady" character by many that knew him. In my investigations of strange phenomena-related film and photographs, the context of the evidence has consistently been more important than analysis of the image.
- There was extreme pressure on Patterson to produce Bigfoot footage quickly. An arrest warrant was brought against Patterson for not paying the bill for his long overdue, rented camera. He was up against a wall and had to come up with a film of a Bigfoot. There are two possibilities--that he is the luckiest Bigfoot searcher in history or that he is a hoaxer. Patterson not only was able to supposedly film a Bigfoot but was also lucky enough to allegedly find fresh Bigfoot tracks on the very first day that he went into the field. Maybe he was a little too lucky with regard to Bigfoot.
- Many have wondered why there was no deathbed confession by Patterson if the film was hoaxed. Would you decrease the value of your greatest financial asset on your deathbed, or would you want to pass it onto your survivors? The Patterson Bigfoot film was worth a significant amount of money as long as it was alleged to be real. The instant Patterson or Gimlin or whoever else may have been involved stated that it was a hoax, its value would take a nosedive.
- How could Patterson have come up with the money if he could not afford to pay for the camera rental? It is possible that he was out of money because he put it into a suit, but this is pure speculation. Special make-up effects master John Vulich thinks that Patterson needed little money to create a suit. In my article on the Chambers/Patterson connection in Strange #17, Vulich opines that Patterson would most likely have rented a suit from make-up man John Chambers (Patterson writes in his book about having business in LA to attend to) for several hundred dollars at most, and having a head adapted from an existing creature mask or fabricated from scratch. (Mark Chorvinsky, "The Makeup Man and the Monster: John Chambers and the Patterson Suit," Strange Magazine, Fall, 1996). If make-up man Tom Burman is correct and the suit is an amateur job, the cost might have been limited to the materials, which make-up artist Rick Baker has suggested looks like fake fur.
Another consideration: the aforementioned Ray Wallace is a wealthy individual, with the resources to purchase a suit.
- Bigfoot sympathizer John Napier, then-director of the Primate Biology Program of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote in his excellent book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., NY, 1972), that the walk of the creature in the film was consistent with that of a modern man, that the body movements were grossly exaggerated, and the walk self-conscious, that the cone-shaped top to the skull is essentially a male characteristic "only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in females." Furthermore he felt that the center of gravity of the film subject is that of a modern man, rather than at a higher level as suggested by the physical build of the creature.
Most telling perhaps is "the presence of buttocks, a human hallmark, [which] is at total variance with the ape-like nature of the superstructure.... The upper half of the body bears some resemblance to an ape and the lower half is typically human. It is almost impossible to conceive that such structural hybrids could exist in nature." (Napier, p. 86)
Napier, one of the most reasonable of the scientists who accepts the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot, concluded that, "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis." (Napier, p. 89)
- When a hoaxer dons an ape suit and goes into the woods, there is always an element of danger. Someone with a gun could shoot the hoaxer. Interestingly, someone who knew Patterson would have been aware that there was little or no chance of being shot by Patterson and/or Gimlin. Patterson had made it clear that he would never shoot a sasquatch or allow one to be shot in his presence. As John Green writes in Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, "[Patterson] was certain that sasquatches were human and must not be shot, and was deaf to any argument to the contrary." According to Bob Gimlin, he and Patterson "...agreed once that if we saw one, we would not shoot it."
It has been suggested that the Patterson Bigfoot film was instrumental in making Bigfoot what he is today and perhaps this is not an overstatement. On its 30th birthday I toast the film that defined and cemented a phenomenal image in the public consciousness, and whose delightfully ambiguous nature will continue to be an item of great controversy for many years to come.
infamousred
All Star
So just as I thought you never actually read a scientific analysis.
Bigfoot: The abridged "NASI Report" 1998... (analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967
You can go find the rest.
Let's follow the timeline:
1966: Roger Patterson puts out a self-published book "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?"
May 1967: Patterson goes out in the woods to make a "Docu-drama" about about cowboys being led by an old miner and a "wise Indian tracker" on a hunt for Bigfoot. In order to fake the bigfoot scenes, Patterson acquires a fake Bigfoot suit from Phillip Morris of "Morris Costumes".
October 1967: Patterson goes out to a place where "Bigfoot footprints" had been found (Later, Ray Wallace's family admitted that he had faked the footprints to please Patterson). While out in the woods in broad daylight, a "real Bigfoot" just happens to run by.
Just happens to run by the very man who already had self-published a book on Bigfoot, made a movie on Bigfoot, and owned a Bigfoot suit.
And you believe this shyt.
And in the next 50 years, when everyone and their mama has a camera on them by now, no one can get better footage.
Here is the Patterson footage, when Bigfoot just happened to walk by his already set-up movie camera:
And of course, that blurry shyt of a man in a monkey costume would have been impossible to fake in the late 1960s.
It's not like 2001: A Space Odessy didn't come out that same year or anything.
The words of the guy who made the suit himself:
The Patterson-Gimlin film has just as many experts who say it's real as experts who say it isn't. It's kinda a wash on that. They were making a bigfoot documentary at the time because they was both mountain men and had seen the shyt many times before. They bought a suit from that Morris guy to use for a re-enactment, which most docs have, and while they were out doing shyt for the doc they actually ran across a real one. But the suit they got from dude was in 6 separate pieces, Morris said it himself, the head was its own piece, both arms, torso...etc. Video experts and scientists have broken the film down and there isnt any point on the body that shows seams or different sections. Then look at the size, it wouldve had to been a dude on stilts to match that height, and anatomically a human on stilts can't even move like that. If it was a dude in a suit he would have had to been one tall ass deformed human. They've even broken the film down and seen muscle twitch which can be replicated by a man in a suit either. But the 2 dudes who did it was hicks basically, they wasn't no Hollywood types or even researchers who could pin point exactly where the joints and muscles should be and how they should hit at certain points in the gate. You mean to tell me Bubba Joe and Willie who literally live in the woods went out there and made an ass out of Stanley Kurbrick with the camera in the 60's? Nah breh. Bubba and Willie couldn't even replicate that with CGI and a Mac in 2017. The simple fact that video is over 50 years old and is still being debated speaks volumes too. You should post some other hoaxes breh, cuz for every point you have there is a valid counterpoint when it comes to the PG Film. That bytch will not go away, and the longer is sticks around the more credible it becomes.
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
No conspiracy, I know it's fact. Guarantee agencies in the government do too. My Battalion Commander certainly knew and told me to just "Forget about it".
Name ONE large animal (hell, even small animal) that lives in every state and every continent, and yet has managed to avoid detection for hundreds of years.
EVERY widespread large animal in the world was already discovered by science hundreds of years ago. The only new ones that keep being found are either only found in some remote area (like a single mountain range or remote jungle where scientists rarely traveled) or are very small.
You can't name a single new large animal in America that's suddenly been discovered anytime in the last hundred years...hell, any time in the last 200 years probably. Somehow there's this ONE animal that is gigantic, lives everywhere, yet no one can get a clear picture of a body.
And the sightings have become FEWER since everyone started carrying cellphone cams around with them everywhere.
First mistake, it's not just an animal. They're closer to human than animal and can breed with humans. Imagine the shock if it's revealed there's a massive primate they can and has bred with people. PR nightmare, because then it becomes, "So there's a chance my missing wife is in a cave being raped to death!"
As far as the picture thing goes...there's something real strange going on there. They have some type of help from our government and some other type of organization. With the tech to erase quality pictures from a distance.
I digress...
As far as I knew he wasn't heavy in the field. I was aware of his books but his name didn't ring bells in the community.
I'd have to provide some links concerning Ketchum. Yes she's a vet, though be it a vet who was qualified to perform dna labs for the fbi after 9/11.
She had to self publish due to the scientific community refusing to even review the science. To be expected of anything outside their box.
But alas, all this stuff is like 5 years old? I can't remember and "you can have that breh".
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
Let's follow the timeline:
1966: Roger Patterson puts out a self-published book "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?"
May 1967: Patterson goes out in the woods to make a "Docu-drama" about about cowboys being led by an old miner and a "wise Indian tracker" on a hunt for Bigfoot. In order to fake the bigfoot scenes, Patterson acquires a fake Bigfoot suit from Phillip Morris of "Morris Costumes".
October 1967: Patterson goes out to a place where "Bigfoot footprints" had been found (Later, Ray Wallace's family admitted that he had faked the footprints to please Patterson). While out in the woods in broad daylight, a "real Bigfoot" just happens to run by.
Just happens to run by the very man who already had self-published a book on Bigfoot, made a movie on Bigfoot, and owned a Bigfoot suit.
And you believe this shyt.
And in the next 50 years, when everyone and their mama has a camera on them by now, no one can get better footage.
Here is the Patterson footage, when Bigfoot just happened to walk by his already set-up movie camera:
And of course, that blurry shyt of a man in a monkey costume would have been impossible to fake in the late 1960s.
It's not like 2001: A Space Odessy didn't come out that same year or anything.
The words of the guy who made the suit himself:
If that is a suit...lol...hollywood needed to apprentice for the designer.
What monster suits had breasts then? What monster suits showed muscles flexing and even evidence of a torn muscle?
one thing ive never really understood re:Bigfooot..
especially in the last 30/40 yrs.. we have all this technology now.. why hasnt anyone been able to track it..?
especially in the last 30/40 yrs.. we have all this technology now.. why hasnt anyone been able to track it..?
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
First, it's relevant because it speaks to his credibility. He has no special information with missing persons, no special experience. There are tens of thousands of Americans who know a lot more about these cases then he does. He's just the kind of guy who self-publishes books with wild theories and makes wild claims in order to bring attention to himself.
Yeah, when a person goes missing, it's creepy. We have a natural tendency to want things to be solved, to want to know what happened. But the world is a BIG place. These are BIG pieces of wilderness. shyt happens. People disappear. Sometimes it's foul play and sometimes it's an accident and sometimes it's someone who wandered off and didn't want to be found.
Second, he clearly is trying to tie the two things together. On the surface, there's an obvious discrepancy in logic that doesn't make sense. How can he claim that tens of thousands of Bigfoot live in America and non one EVER finds them, but then be surprised that a person goes missing in the same wilderness here and there? If the forest is big enough to hide tens of thousands of Bigfoot without any scientists ever being able to find them, then it's obviously big enough for a person to get lost, or killed, and not be found.
But the Bigfoot connection is clear if you look at what he does. I've
1. His map of "missing persons clusters" is very suggestive (It matches the "Bigfoot sightings map")
2. He ignores the many missing persons cases that occur in cities and on water, instead only discusses the ones in the forest (because that's where Bigfoot supposedly is)
3. He claims that "dogs with owners" are involved in many of the disappearances. (because people have claimed elsewhere that Bigfoot doesn't like dogs)
4. He claims that tracking dogs "refuse to track" the missing person (suggesting that they're scared of sometime...like a Bigfoot)
5. He claims that major storms often develop after the disapparance (elsewhere, people claim Bigfoot can control local weather)
6. He claims the disappearances often happen near swampy or very brushy areas, or near boulderfields. (all places he claims in his other books that Bigfoot can hide)
7. He claims clothing was taken off of many victims. (Implying that an outside thing, like Bigfoot, did something to them)
8. He claims that berries were present in many cases (elsewhere, he claims that berries are a favorite food of Bigfoot).
I mean, seriously, berries?
NO ONE in their right mind actually thinks that there is some special correlation between "missing persons" and "berries", other than the fact that the woods are full of berries and people sometimes go into the woods to pick them.
The ONLY reason that David Paulides is making up a ridiculous correlation between berries and missing people, and all those other cherry-picked correlations, is because he wants to suggest that Bigfoot has something to do with it.
But he doesn't "say Bigfoot" straight up because he knows that would turn off 50% of his audience, and because he wants to pretend to be "objective" and "scientific".
Breh just stop...
Even someone not versed in wildlife can make the connection with berries. Similar to how you stand a good chance if getting your ass tore out the frame by a bear who also like berries.
With the tech we have there's no reason search and rescue should not be anle to find a body. When a person dies guess what, their bidy release odors that TRAINED dogs could find blind folded.
He been off the bf connection years ago for the majority of cases. He's leaning more toward multiple culprits.
Dzali OG
Dz Ali OG...Pay me like you owe me!
Thank you.