Why do we consider the Patterson and Gimlin Big Foot film to be among the best video evidence

[BACK]

---

Posted On: March 7, 2023

I think there are a lot of weird circumstances about the situation and I also think most of the talking points regurgitated on this sub about why it's good footage are relatively misinformed.

The Abominable Snowman of The Himalayas came out 10 years earlier in 1957 and set a strong precedent for the story of Bigfoot to be profitable. A newspaper called The Humboldt Times referred to the creature in the film as “Bigfoot,” which we've been calling it ever since. It seems like a very profitable marketing strategy to then come out 10 years later and say "We saw BigFoot" thus tapping into the profitability of past media like the abominable snowman of the Himalayas, rather than being objective about the situation saying that you've filmed an unclassified primate living in the North American wilderness. It would be sort of like me filming someone who looks like a vampire and saying "Look I filmed Dracula". There is a clear commercial incentive behind phrasing your findings that way. In 1967 Patterson went on to copyright the name "Bigfoot" showing that he always had money at the front of his mind. In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie, showing again, that this situation was at minimum at least as much about making money as it was making an honest informative documentary about this creature. Even if you are money hungry, it should seem apparent that if you're the one to prove the existence of this creature you will become so renowned that you shouldn't be worrying about having the copyright to the name "Bigfoot", that is, unless you know that the existence of the commercial image of Bigfoot is the only thing that you actually have going for you. Another interesting point worth considering is, in May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama about cowboys being led by an old miner on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes. We could of course give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that he probably did not have a bigfoot suit lined up for his film whose plot revolved around Bigfoot, but that's obviously suspicious in the grand scheme of things. That being said, just because he was greedy doesn't mean the footage is fake, and even if it were fake that doesn't negate the existence of Sasquatch. This is just stuff worth considering in the context of this sub's consideration that the PG film is among "the best video evidence" for Sasquatch.

People often talk about how if it is a man in a suit, it has to be an unbelievably good suit, something that Patterson and Gimlin wouldn't have had access to in 1968. Let's keep in mind that these people were not poor, and Patterson was an artist familiar with the film industry. Can you guess which movie came out 6 months after the PG encounter? Planet of the Apes. In fact filming for this movie took place between May 21 and August 10, 1967, in California, Utah, and Arizona. If people were capable of making costumes of that calibre at the time, it's certainly plausible that the technology and craftsmanship was available to create a suit of Patty calibre. If they were able to develop suits with human-like facial expressions that turned out well on state of the art Hollywood calibre cameras, I'm sure it would be an order of magnitude easier to make them look believable on the camera used by Patterson and Gimlin. If you think Patty's leg jiggle is too convincing, I recommend you go and watch the first planet of the apes movie before making that judgement.

This is a picture that Patterson drew a year before the PG encounter, of a female Sasquatch with large breasts walking broadside across a clearing.

Here is a Patterson sketch from 1966 alongside his film from a year later.

As a final note, I would like to point out that it was alleged by friends and locals that Patterson had been caught doing Bigfoot hoaxes previously. Let me also note, Bob Heironimus, who had a role in their BigFoot docudrama and was a friend of Patterson, has come out and said that the whole thing was a hoax and that he was the one wearing the suit in the footage, for which they paid him $1000. Bob could of course be lying, but it is worth thinking about.

In summary, there was enormous monetary incentive behind Patterson and Gimlin getting the leg up on the Bigfoot story for their film and documentary, and we can easily discern that they were financially motivated individuals. We can also say that the craftsmanship and knowledge base to create a costume of that calibre absolutely existed at the time as planet of the apes was being filmed only a month later, and we know that Patterson had been involved in Bigfoot hoaxes before. I can't say for certain that the footage is of a man in a suit, and even if it were I wouldn't say that the implication is that there is no unclassified primate living in the North American wilderness, but given the suspicious circumstances it doesn't seem appropriate to me to consider this footage to be among the best video evidence.

Post from user organdonor69420 at bigfoot at reddit.com.

Comments:

As a final note, I would like to point out that Patterson had been caught doing Bigfoot hoaxes before, not one, but three.

The Montana Bigfoot Incident: In 1962, Patterson claimed to have captured a Bigfoot in Montana, but the creature turned out to be a local man in a costume.

The Yakima Bigfoot Hoax: In 1967, just months before the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot, Patterson and an associate named Philip Morris reportedly attempted to create fake Bigfoot footprints in Yakima, Washington.

(ALLEGED) The Bigfoot Costume Rental Business: locals claimed that Patterson had ran a business renting out Bigfoot costumes to local pranksters in the years before the film was shot.

I have never heard of these. How much documentation is there for them? .

Personally, Im on the fence about the PGF. Generally, I dont think anyone should get too emotionally invested in any specific individual piece of evidence.

Comment from user occamsvolkswagen at bigfoot at reddit.com.

[BACK]

---

Posted On: March 7, 2023

I think there are a lot of weird circumstances about the situation and I also think most of the talking points regurgitated on this sub about why it's good footage are relatively misinformed.

The Abominable Snowman of The Himalayas came out 10 years earlier in 1957 and set a strong precedent for the story of Bigfoot to be profitable. A newspaper called The Humboldt Times referred to the creature in the film as “Bigfoot,” which we've been calling it ever since. It seems like a very profitable marketing strategy to then come out 10 years later and say "We saw BigFoot" thus tapping into the profitability of past media like the abominable snowman of the Himalayas, rather than being objective about the situation saying that you've filmed an unclassified primate living in the North American wilderness. It would be sort of like me filming someone who looks like a vampire and saying "Look I filmed Dracula". There is a clear commercial incentive behind phrasing your findings that way. In 1967 Patterson went on to copyright the name "Bigfoot" showing that he always had money at the front of his mind. In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie, showing again, that this situation was at minimum at least as much about making money as it was making an honest informative documentary about this creature. Even if you are money hungry, it should seem apparent that if you're the one to prove the existence of this creature you will become so renowned that you shouldn't be worrying about having the copyright to the name "Bigfoot", that is, unless you know that the existence of the commercial image of Bigfoot is the only thing that you actually have going for you. Another interesting point worth considering is, in May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama about cowboys being led by an old miner on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes. We could of course give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that he probably did not have a bigfoot suit lined up for his film whose plot revolved around Bigfoot, but that's obviously suspicious in the grand scheme of things. That being said, just because he was greedy doesn't mean the footage is fake, and even if it were fake that doesn't negate the existence of Sasquatch. This is just stuff worth considering in the context of this sub's consideration that the PG film is among "the best video evidence" for Sasquatch.

People often talk about how if it is a man in a suit, it has to be an unbelievably good suit, something that Patterson and Gimlin wouldn't have had access to in 1968. Let's keep in mind that these people were not poor, and Patterson was an artist familiar with the film industry. Can you guess which movie came out 6 months after the PG encounter? Planet of the Apes. In fact filming for this movie took place between May 21 and August 10, 1967, in California, Utah, and Arizona. If people were capable of making costumes of that calibre at the time, it's certainly plausible that the technology and craftsmanship was available to create a suit of Patty calibre. If they were able to develop suits with human-like facial expressions that turned out well on state of the art Hollywood calibre cameras, I'm sure it would be an order of magnitude easier to make them look believable on the camera used by Patterson and Gimlin. If you think Patty's leg jiggle is too convincing, I recommend you go and watch the first planet of the apes movie before making that judgement.

This is a picture that Patterson drew a year before the PG encounter, of a female Sasquatch with large breasts walking broadside across a clearing.

Here is a Patterson sketch from 1966 alongside his film from a year later.

As a final note, I would like to point out that it was alleged by friends and locals that Patterson had been caught doing Bigfoot hoaxes previously. Let me also note, Bob Heironimus, who had a role in their BigFoot docudrama and was a friend of Patterson, has come out and said that the whole thing was a hoax and that he was the one wearing the suit in the footage, for which they paid him $1000. Bob could of course be lying, but it is worth thinking about.

In summary, there was enormous monetary incentive behind Patterson and Gimlin getting the leg up on the Bigfoot story for their film and documentary, and we can easily discern that they were financially motivated individuals. We can also say that the craftsmanship and knowledge base to create a costume of that calibre absolutely existed at the time as planet of the apes was being filmed only a month later, and we know that Patterson had been involved in Bigfoot hoaxes before. I can't say for certain that the footage is of a man in a suit, and even if it were I wouldn't say that the implication is that there is no unclassified primate living in the North American wilderness, but given the suspicious circumstances it doesn't seem appropriate to me to consider this footage to be among the best video evidence.

Post from user organdonor69420 at bigfoot at reddit.com.

Comments:

As a final note, I would like to point out that Patterson had been caught doing Bigfoot hoaxes before, not one, but three.

The Montana Bigfoot Incident: In 1962, Patterson claimed to have captured a Bigfoot in Montana, but the creature turned out to be a local man in a costume.

The Yakima Bigfoot Hoax: In 1967, just months before the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot, Patterson and an associate named Philip Morris reportedly attempted to create fake Bigfoot footprints in Yakima, Washington.

(ALLEGED) The Bigfoot Costume Rental Business: locals claimed that Patterson had ran a business renting out Bigfoot costumes to local pranksters in the years before the film was shot.

I have never heard of these. How much documentation is there for them? .

Personally, Im on the fence about the PGF. Generally, I dont think anyone should get too emotionally invested in any specific individual piece of evidence.

Comment from user occamsvolkswagen at bigfoot at reddit.com.

Why do we consider the Patterson and Gimlin Big Foot film to be among the best video evidence

[BACK]