Patterson BIGFOOT Film in Classic Horror Polls Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Patterson BIGFOOT Film

Author	Comment
stuthehistoryguy		#21	[-]
Jan 18 10 11:45 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Having read Greg Long's The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, I'm terribly convinced that it's a man in an ape suit. At the VERY least, Long establishes quite conclusively that Patterson was exactly the kind of person who would have created this sort of hoax. If Patterson and Gimlin actually did film some unknown hominid, it's very like Rush Limbaugh coincidentally overhearing Barack Obama talking to the Communist International in the next bathroom stall.
	Remove this ad
bromstaker		#22	[-]
Jan 31 10 1:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But in Long's book the alleged costume maker/seller, Phillip Morris, described a different suit from the one described by the alleged man in the suit Bob Heironimus. They can't both be right. And the case against Patterson is built largely on hearsay, with no solid evidence offered and no smoking gun. It is one-sided. In a court of law both sides present their case. Patterson isn't here to defend himself, but Dr. Jeff Meldrum does offer an effective rebuttle to Long's book in his own book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. While I certainly concede the possibility that the figure in the Patterson film is a man in a suit, I simply don't find Heironimus credible. The bio-mechanical and anatomical analysis of the figure by Meldrum and others is compelling to me.
CreepingBride		#23	[-]
Jan 31 10 7:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	{one of the few internet "Star Trek" references that I know...}
Bob Morris		#24	[-]
Feb 1 10 7:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, this subject came up at Hollywood monkey Bob Burns' house in a sit down talk at the time of the Famous Monsters convention in '95, and he was convicing enough and through out enough names and evidence against this film that I was convinced it was fake. I remember him specifically saying that it has long been known by insiders (and specifically "Gorilla Insiders") that the film is a masterful piece of hokum. Last Edited By: Bob Morris Feb 1 10 7:03 AM. Edited 1 times.
rvoyttbots		#25	[-]
Feb 1 10 10:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It looks like a person in an ape costume. It is FAKE. And I have no doubt that if there really were bigfeet, one would have been captured or found dead by now. What mysterious power do these fakes have that keeps them from being catalogued like every other creature on Earth? When Y2K turned out to be baloney that is when I made up my mind about this kind of stuff. Baloney. Last Edited By: rvoyttbots Feb 1 10 10:24 PM. Edited 1 times.
MikeTheMook		#26	[-]
Feb 2 10 10:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You hit on my main problem with this "phenomenon" rvoy. What mysterious power indeed to these things have? I cannot believe that every single person who ever reported a BF sighting was a liar, though certainly some are. And I also cannot believe that every single legit claim is a mistaken identification of a bear, though certainly some are. Take the creature itself. It's kind of ordinary if you really think about it. Especially when compared to many extremely strange creatures we do know exist, like in the deep sea. I watch nature programs and still find hard to believe some of the amazing creatures that they show on tv are real! So, I have no problem, it's no stretch of my imagination that a BF can exist. BUT! Many of the reports give these things seeming supernatural powers. "I shot at it, and it just stood there" Or "It went around the tree and it was gone". I'm sure you've read these types of things in these reports. For the sake of argument, let's suppose they are real. Don't you think it's as if these things can read our minds? That they're toying with us? That somehow they are impervious to our guns, our detection, our science? That they are actually smarter than we are? It's like they are only spotted when they choose to be, and by whom they choose to be. If it were a real creature, and could do all these things, then I for one don't want to discover anymore about it, and I hope to God they stay far in the woods where they belong. So it's not the creature itself that I have a problem with, physiologically. Rather, it's all these weird unexplainable circumstances that surround it that gives me pause. To be devil's advocate, if some of the witnesses through the years reported accurately what they claim to have seen, (and bears and every other possible thing could be ruled out) then just what the hell are they seeing? Something of nature? Or something else? Last Edited By: MikeTheMook Feb 6 10 9:42 PM. Edited 1 times.
Grant		#27	[-]
Feb 3 10 3:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This complaint partly belongs elsewhere, but it belongs here too. I've complained before about how there's actually a reverse version of colorization, where something in color is shown on TV in black and white, not because of a problem with the color but to be "arty." And I've complained about how I've never heard ANYONE ELSE complain about it, unlike the droves of people who get mad about colorization itself. One time I saw a magazine show episode with a Bigfoot segment, and sure enough, the Patterson film was shown in BW! This might not have been an all-out cryptozoology show, but it seems to me that showing the thing in color (as it was made) could only HELP the viewers decide for themselves about it. I know there are ways that black and white brings out details (most of which reasons are Greek to me, since I understand virtually NOTHING about any kind of photography), but it seemed to me like a bad move, and again, like just another case of "Won't this look 'edgier" if we show it in black and white?"
Koukol 5		#28	[-]
Feb 9 10 3:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: Wasn't there an absolute confession that this thing was fake? Yes
Grant		#29	[-]
Feb 9 10 6:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have nothing against Bob Burns, but his "insiders" sound like the same kind of anonymous people and 2nd and 3rd-hand stories that cause the believers in these things to get so much flak! So why doesn't it get the dis-believers nearly as much?
gfanikf		#30	[-]
Feb 9 10 8:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Koukol 5 wrote: Rick wrote: Wasn't there an absolute confession that this thing was fake? Yes Not by Patterson or Gimilin. It was by a guy who claimed to be a part of them. HK AND CULT FILM NEWS Your source for all the latest Hong Kong and Cult Films DVD News and Reviews! I actually said he was da bomb but my main man Dennis didn't peep me right.- Tom "Big Daddy" Weaver.
	Remove this ad
aboo43078		#31	[-]
Feb 12 10 7:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That was anoteriety seeker.... A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND.... ..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!!
aboo43078		#32	[-]
Feb 12 10 9:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Koukol 5 wrote: Rick wrote: Wasn't there an absolute confession that this thing was fake? Yes Noteriety seekers. Heronimous and the footprint maker just were tall tale telllers. After the footprint maker died--his family made a big to-do about creating bigfoot. A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND.... ..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! Last Edited By: aboo43078 Feb 16 10 11:00 AM. Edited 1 times.
capmonte		#33	[-]
Feb 19 10 3:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Doesn't someone here have that footage as his avatar? Maybe it was a different site. I was mesmerized watching it loop the other day over and over and over...thinking, "how is this NOT a guy in a suit?" "The important question is not, are there aliens on other worlds? No. The important question is, do they have ray guns?"
delgadosaur		#34	[-]
Mar 3 10 2:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's fake...dammit.
atenolol		#35	[-]
Apr 10 10 9:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I remember watching a nature program on Discovery and a zoologist went to the site of the filming and recreated it and pointed out that the animal had to pass within a relatively few feet of the humans. He did not find it convincing that a wild animal would be so blase about humans being so near. I think he had a good point.
The Mighty Bongo		#36	[-]
Apr 20 10 5:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm thinkin that maybe it was not only John Chambers, but also some of the guys that worked with Chambers at the time, Wah Chang, and Janos Prohaska. The face looks a good deal similar to Changs mask he sculpted for the Star Trek episode; Galalleo 7(sic) for the giant bigfoot-like creatures. The Trek monster was played by a 7' tall guy named "Buck" Maffei. Buck Maffei and Patterson were friends and co-workers at a wild west show run by Ray "Crash" Corrigan. Corrigan was one of the most famous movie gorilla men of all time. Janos Prahaska was also a major player in the gorilla man business. Prohaskas work was mainly seen in television,and he played a wide variety of creatures as well. ( including the blob-like Horta from Star Trek) Most of these guys worked for, or with, a Hollywood effects house called Project Unlimited. (most famous for "The Outer Limits") Chambers, Chang,and Prohaska were the 3 main creature guys at Project. They were famous for cobbling together pieces of past creations to make new ones. The Patterson "subject" looks like a combination of many elements. The head looks like a modified version of Changs Galeleo 7 creature. The overall body shape ( padding) looks similar to the apes that Prohaska was making at the time, with a wide back, and enormous butt ! If you look at the footage posted above, you'll see that while large strides are being taken, the butt barely moves at all. You'll also notice a line running across the upper thigh on the leg closest to us, as though a piece of foam rubber padding were stuck in the leg to beef it up a bit. This shows in a lot of Prohaskas apes. Nothing pertaining to theanatomy had not been achieved before by Charles Gemora, Ray Corrigan, Art Miles, and a host of gorilla men as far back as the 30's Chris Want to hang out with the ultimate party animals ? Come see us at; http://www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/
.		#37	[-]
May 14 11 4:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	aboo43078 wrote: Ray Wallaces family claimed a fake, and Bob Heronimus . Make up and suits came no where near this creaature on film--look at Lost in Space-Outer Limits- Star Trek-etc from near the same era. And, that it is female. There have been new studies of first gen PGF footage. Most professional people with analytical capabilities say that PGF is real. Only after Hairy and the Hendersons came out did a suit work. Go to you tube to find all the fakes you want. There are people that don't believe man walked on the moon. Go to BFRO.Net and read everything you can... Then check out Bigfoot Encounters and Squatchmarks on the web. BF is rare and most people having a sighting are Post Traumatic Stressed and rarely report it for fear of ridicule. (Oh, You watch Monster movies? Why don't you grow up!--Oh, you saw a bigfoot? Was the Easter Bunny with you?) Examples only. Right on! I know about Patterson's activities and all the people who claim to have participated in the hoax-- but the bottom line is the technology for such a realistic suit did not exist at that time. Phoney looking suit folds/wrinkles? You should see my wife's relatives in bathing suits. There is no zipper. And more importantly, THERE IS NO COLLAR. My belief is that Patterson was a huckster who managed to get real Bogfoot images in spite of himself.
.		#38	[-]
May 14 11 4:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	capmonte wrote: Doesn't someone here have that footage as his avatar? Maybe it was a different site. I was mesmerized watching it loop the other day over and over and over...thinking, "how is this NOT a guy in a suit?" The answer to your question is: "Because it has no collar."
.		#39	[-]
May 14 11 4:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Mighty Bongo wrote: I'm thinkin that maybe it was not only John Chambers, but also some of the guys that worked with Chambers at the time, Wah Chang, and Janos Prohaska. The face looks a good deal similar to Changs mask he sculpted for the Star Trek episode; Galalleo 7(sic) for the giant bigfoot-like creatures. Oh come on. The Trek monster was played by a 7' tall guy named "Buck" Maffei. Buck Maffei and Patterson were friends and co-workers at a wild west show run by Ray "Crash" Corrigan. Corrigan was one of the most famous movie gorilla men of all time. Janos Prahaska was also a major player in the gorilla man business. Prohaskas work was mainly seen in television,and he played a wide variety of creatures as well. ( including the blob-like Horta from Star Trek) Most of these guys worked for, or with, a Hollywood effects house called Project Unlimited. (most famous for "The Outer Limits") Chambers, Chang,and Prohaska were the 3 main creature guys at Project. All of this is very thorough, and 100% accurate. They were famous for cobbling together pieces of past creations to make new ones. The Patterson "subject" looks like a combination of many elements. The head looks like a modified version of Changs Galeleo 7 creature. Not even close. The overall body shape ( padding) looks similar to the apes that Prohaska was making at the time, with a wide back, and enormous butt ! True. If you look at the footage posted above, you'll see that while large strides are being taken, the butt barely moves at all. You'll also notice a line running across the upper thigh on the leg closest to us, as though a piece of foam rubber padding were stuck in the leg to beef it up a bit. This shows in a lot of Prohaskas apes. Bob Burns' suits have these features too. But you're seeing an extraordinary amount of detail, in my opinion. Nothing pertaining to the anatomy had not been achieved before by Charles Gemora, Ray Corrigan, Art Miles, and a host of gorilla men as far back as the 30's This is absolutely true except for the collar. Picture in your mind ANY of the costumes you're thinking of. They all have collars that turn with their heads.
Rider		#40	[-]
May 15 11 3:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	BennySabola wrote: capmonte wrote: Doesn't someone here have that footage as his avatar? Maybe it was a different site. I was mesmerized watching it loop the other day over and over and over...thinking, "how is this NOT a guy in a suit?" The answer to your question is: "Because it has no collar." So you are saying that they had no way of making a suit without a collar in the the 1960's?
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Patterson BIGFOOT Film