PATTERSON-GIMLIN BIGFOOT FILM. MAN IN A SUIT OR A REAL SASQUATCH?

The Patterson–Gimlin film is an American short motion picture of an unidentified subject which the filmmakers have said was a Bigfoot. The footage was shot in 1967 in Northern California, and has since been subjected to many attempts to authenticate or debunk it.
Was it a man in an ape-like costume? Or was it real?
Was a costume made in the late sixties used to created the Hoax of the Century??
Featured music:
Invisible enemy-Jeremy Black.
Tribal war council-Doug Maxwell, media rights productions.
The new order.
Coastline-Tracktribe.

[kabarorane]

Hollywood can not duplicate that suit at all I believe the creature is 100 percent accurate and is real

[sustainablelifest]

I have seen one in my woods near Kentucky. Runs faster than any human. Looked almost exactly like this one.

[rougebaba]

Bill Munns is perhaps one of the best costume designers ever in Hollywood. His heyday of course was before CGI. He knows a great deal about what it takes to make a believable costume and film making itself. He took great pains in analyzing the P.G. film. His verdict? He says, based on his analysis coupled with his knowledge of costume design and film making, that what we see in the P.G. film is not a guy in a costume but a living, breathing animal in its natural state. To me that counts for something.

[GuitarLessonsBobbyCrispy]

That white ape/alien in the Star Trek episode @4:20 was played by Janos Prohaska. He was best known for his work as playing gorillas and ape-like creatures in Hollywood movies and tv shows. He was asked if he thought the Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot film was a costume and he said '...You could see all the muscles in the body. It didn't move as if it were a costume....I don' think so. If it would be a costume that would have taken such a long time to put the head, to glue it on. It would take about ten hours, the whole make-up job. And it looked to me very very real. I've been doing this since 1939, and if that was a costume, that was the best I have ever seen'.

[randyjohnson]

The fact it was IMPOSSIBLE to create this suit in 1967 settles the arguement.

[cliftonjarvis]

America was sending people to space and we supposed to think that nobody could make a damn suit look like that, but I should say that it moves better than any other person in a suit that I have seen.

[chazman]

Just because you cannot see seams does not make it a sasquatch. What some think are muscles moving appear to be simply a result of poor film quality. The quality of the film is terrible no matter how you try to enhance it. If it is a sasquatch with such short hair why does it not have genitals or a butt? Why would a sasquatch have hair completely covering it's backside with no apparent way to defecate. That is the seam we should be worried about not seeing...

[thegigglystinkfinger]

The fact that its been over 50 years and with the leap in technology in that timespan only raises more questions about this video is all the proof I need. This video is absolutely legit

[DaveLennonCopeland]

I'm astonished that people still think this is real. You can see the seam on the lower back, bum area, arm and leg. Look at the top of the thigh, there is a shape like the pockets you get on cargo pants, that is obviously not muscles. The way it looks around directly at the camera is suspect too.
Come on people, just be honest and call it out for what it is; a man in a costume.

[edschmitz]

The gait looks natural, and is not human. The knees don't lock, and the shins rise higher. Tough for me to believe that a man in a suit performed this gait over rough terrain without stumbling or even once looking down.

[markneeley]

Common sense indeed. So two poor cowboys knew enough about the species to make Patty anatomically correct in every aspect. The longer arms, always bent knees, lack of neck, continual pace and, of course, lactating breasts. For having never seen a sasquatch until then, they sure got that costume right. Especially for a 7'4" female.

[churchking]

It's 100% a Bob Heronimus in a costume, he has the exact same walk, especially if you watch the stabilized 4k version. The "breasts" are in the wrong position by a mile, and the hips and buttocks are clearly suspenders. The face looks like a suit.
All the "details" people pretend to see are just poor quality, low resolution, low frame rate, and potential touch ups during the colouring process. Everyone's story is very inconsistent, but I think that's a result of them trying to exaggerate how good the suit was, and trying to leave out the names of other people who don't want to be mentioned.

[motorgearhead]

The suit was impossible in 1967. Also look at the biomechanics of its movement. Look at limb ratios & flexion angles of the legs. There are lot of clues to what the subject isn’t and less of what it is…

[PatrickFoley-vflr]

As much as we want it to be real, it is unlikely to be.

[kptyler]

You can clearly see the creatures muscles flexing in the leg and and so clearly!!! I believe this is REAL 💯

[WaltANelsonPHD]

Man in a suit. In the last half century of searching for Bigfoot, all they can show is one minute of the Patterson film.

[SeanRCope]

Dude in a suit. He admitted it and footage of him walking is exactly like the suit guy a very longtime ago.

[ms.annthrope]

Robert Patterson was trying to raise money to makr a bigfoot movie but had no luck. Back in 1967, home movie cameras were expensive but coukd be rented. Why on earth did Patterson and Gimlan rented a Bell and Howell camera when they went for a horseback ride? Were they expecting something strange that needed to be filmed? What a coincidence. Its only a ahort ateo from making a bigfoot movie to sudde ly getting found a bigfoot to film. Then after they showed this footage, they have "lost" the original. The most convincing evidence of bigfoot and they lost it? There is a costume maker who claimed Patterson came in to order a gorilla suit. But he can't produce a receipt or order form for this order. Now Bob Hieronimous says he was the one who wore the gorill suit and he never got paid for his role.

Of course who would think to make a female Bigfoot (notice thr boobs). Soukd a faker think of that? Too many inconsistencies and coincidences to sway one way or another.

It is not for skeptics to debunk the Patterson/Gimlan film it is the burden of the proponent to prove their position. That is the rule in science and in law.

[vivaelgato]

You can see seams and separations around the waist.
The posterior is just one mound with a distinct separation where the hips connect to the thigh just like some gorilla suits or the costume from How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000).
Also moving muscles can most definitely NOT be seen so mask can not be ruled out.
That's the problem with bigfoot footage, photos, etc. NOTHING can be definitively seen!
It's a human in what looks like a three piece costume.
Mask connected to or draped over/around the mid-shoulder, Padded upper half wrapping around or draped over the crotch and heinie, which is probably why the actor had to turn at the shoulder instead of the waist. Watch how Michael Keeton turns awkwardly in his portrayal of Batman the same way. and finally a hot fuzzy lower half that the actor wanted to get out of so badly, that they walked with such angry iconic strides.
The camera man needing more to work with and to shock the viewers shouted, "NOW! LOOK AT THE CAMERA!". The actor tired of doing several of these takes and NOT wanting to get caught and possibly shot while doing this, looks back and contemplates flipping the bird.
Mystery solved!
It's a good hoax, heck it may possibly be the best hoax but that's all it is!..

[DavidBeecraft]

Would love to believe in the magic of Bigfoot. The thing I always find surprising though is how people focus in a rather myopic way on whether there is a creature out there or not. Like analysing whether this video is real or not. It’s largely irrelevant. The important thing is that if we step back and consider that for any species to survive over the course of evolutionary time, there would have to be a (relatively) large and stable breeding population. There wouldn’t just be one of these things, but hundreds/thousands of them to ensure their continued survival. Moreover there would have to be a known and stable food chain they fitted into. So even if there wasn’t any evidence of their existence in terms of bones, dna, actual recorded sightings or historical relics, there would be consistent and observable evidence of their impact on the environment and food chain.

In terms of their reported intelligence and capacity to remain hidden, it is worth remembering the Mountain Gorilla, discovered in the early part of the 20th Century. The mountain Gorilla is endangered with approximately only 1000 remaining. They are perhaps the most reclusive animal we know and live in the most hard to reach and remote areas of the Ugandan and Rwandan mountains. In fact there perhaps couldn’t be a more remote area on the planet. And yet trackers are able to find them, reliably and consistently, each time.

It’s quite hard then to comprehend the existence of an unknown species hybrid/primate in the face of quite reasonable logic