I was blessed to have seen a first generation print of this film and the actual foot casts. The footcasts have toe print ridges on the toes. Impossible to fake in 1967.
Toe print ridges? In soft soil or sand? LOL True believers will say anything. This is total nonsense. Patty's feet would have been callused after walking on them for years on various types of terrain. When a callus forms, it increases the overall thickness of the epidermis in that area. As calluses develop, they obscure or flatten these ridges due to the additional layers of keratinized cells accumulating on top which results in it being extremely difficult to create dermal ridge impressions. And her feet would have been dirty after walking around for however long since she was last in a river. At least the duration of the Patty film. Her dirty callused feet would not have left dermal ridges in sand or loose soil. The first notable instances of dermal ridges appearing in Bigfoot casts can be traced back to the casts made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June 1982 in southeastern Washington State. Some hoaxer decided to make his casts more real and more easily found by others. Same for the "crippled bigfoot" casts. Again, a hoaxer tried to make his casts more real.
@ glad to see you refer to the Bigfoot as female. If you truly believed it was a hoax you would not make that distinction. And the soil the casts were taken from was damp and took the impression well.
@@leewm.gaudry3770 Where is the evidence for this? This sounds like pure speculation. The Patty film supposedly happened in the afternoon. Where is an interview within a month of it happening where Robert or Bob claimed that there was damp soil with clay there? Not a single interview states that it was raining that morning or that week. Dew would be gone in a matter of a few hours in the morning "on a bright sunny day". And why are the Patty footprint casts "flatfooted"? No movement at all in the impression. Claims 57 years later are all nice and well, but nobody is going to believe them without solid evidence. People's memories from 5+ decades ago are even worse then recent eyewitness testimony. Unless it was documented, any rational person has to think that it was made up out of whole cloth or being misremembered. On the other hand, I would have no doubts that a hoaxer would, months or years later, sculpt into the plaster "some ridges" if they thought it would make them more realistic. Create the ridges, rub a little similarly colored dirt on them to make it appear original, and voila. Fake ridges. This is similar to people claiming that Patty was over 7 feet tall and weighed over 600 pounds. The evidence is not there. Most estimates put her at 6' 3" to 6' 5" like the following: thedavisreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/mcclarin-multiwalk-comparison-animation.gif This would put her at about 400 pounds max. But then we get a discrepancy. Bob Gimlin claimed that Patty's prints were deeper than his horse hoof prints. Except that 4 horse hooves have less surface area than 2 Patty feet. This means that Patty had to be heavier than Bob and his horse combined. That sized horse weighs 900 to 1,400 pounds and let's say that Bob was 150, not counting saddle and gear. That means that Patty had to weigh more than 1,050 pounds. At even 6' 5", there is no way that she is more than 1,000 pounds. And it's these types of discrepancies that illustrate the Patty is almost definitely a hoax (there are a few dozen more such discrepancies). The issue is that when a story is made up, there will always be holes in it. Believing in bigfoot is fine, but ignoring the evidence against the Patty film is disingenuous. True believers do themselves a big disservice when they do not call out the BS as BS.
@@darlenesmith5690 as a man who gets very callous I get where you’re coming from, but have you ever touched the hands and feet of a wild monkey? They spend all day every day climbing and their hands remain soft and smooth. The softest I’ve ever touched. Some critters are just built different.
In July 2023 I was camping in Kananaskis Country, in the middle of nowhere. At around 3-am a biped was walking around my tent. There were dried pine needles everywhere. It was the crushing under foot that I and my dog heard. Her movement awoke me. I scrambled around for the bear spray and whatever was outside the tent must of heard me as it stopped moving. By now I was fully awake. I distinctly heard the person or creature walk on two legs and leave the location. I compared this to a moose that walked by my tent,the breathing and gait were completely different.
I have camped in Kananaskis country many times. Just last month I was on a hike around Wasootch. We did not see anyone on the trail. That’s how isolated the area is. Yes. A highway cuts through it but literally 100 feet off the highway is pure bush, much of it never stepped in by a human. My point is that I also heard Moose and elk and even Caribou walk around my tent (verified by hoof prints the next day) and I believe you when you say that a biped sounds completely different than an angulate as they loco-mote next to you.
I, at now 84, so do remember when this all happened....and, had my own experience in 1980 at the totally deserted Trinity Lake in northern CA. The reason I recall the date so well is because the day prior, I had celebrated my 40th birthday. I certainly thought this phenomena would have been concluded long before now, but here it is over 40 years later still with both believers and nonbelievers.
@@WillRobinson-r7c As a lifetime astronomer and chemist, I've always followed the evidence...Theories MUST be supported by evidence, and when/if the evidence changes, my beliefs change right along with it. Doesn't mean I'm 100% right...just what the evidence supports at that moment. Same things applies to UFOs....(My primary interest) of which I've had four 'Up close and in my face' sightings/experiences...going all the way back to the late 60's. BHE
I believe the footage is real. I thought stuff like bigfoot was made up when i was a kid, but when i was 13 i saw a black panther in the woods. This is in England, where a unidentified large black cat is a cryptid. After that experience (it was 20 feet away) i became fascinated with cryptozoology
The really scary part is if we'll find proof in our lifetime. There have been bodies found of mythical creatures from over 200 years ago. And that's if it's real. But if mythical creatures have been proven real before then why not this?
I've not seen any "cryptoids", but I've been stalked 3 times by something large & heavy. Twice in woods (near Faversham & Littlebourne Kent) & once when very young on a picnic.
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
I remember in a TV show about this film an interesting fact. The creature in the film, much like almost all early hominids has no neck, and cannot look over its shoulders the way a human can. It must turn it's body partially in order to see anything passed 45 degrees from center.
As someone else pointed out, the rippling shockwave of the muscles in the leg and she stamps her foot down is the most compelling part of this footage. It is undeniably real just based on that.
This effect can be achieved easily (from a distance) by using spirit gum to attach fake fur to an actual bare leg covered in dark body paint. It looks bad in person, but 25 yds away on blurry footage it looks great. (Even the remastered footage is blurry compared to "live and in person".)
This is gold. Is bigfoot real or fake? Has there ever been skeletal remains found? No! Have any fossils been found? No! Is there an evolutionary link to any primate? No! Has there been any DNA found as in a hair, tooth, scat, saliva on food etc No! Is there any trail cam footage? No! With absolutely NO evidence of bigfoots existence EVER Science says it's a hoax. Therefore the film is fake. Why can I see muscle and definition then? Because you're watching a remastered film. The 1967 film is a man in a suit. The movement of bigfoot in the film is well within the human range. What about the distance between steps? We have to believe the hoaxers word on that. Humans are the only primate NOT to have a hallux or divergent big toe. The hallux evolved for holding, grabbing and climbing. Human feet evolved for walking long distances and running. If human feet don't wear shoes their toes spread. The casts of Patty's feet look like she's been wearing shoes with her toes not spread and neatly aligned. The original casts were just enlarged human feet. Science and evolution says the casts are fake. Bigfoot must live in the paranormal world because there's no evidence she lives in this world.
Lies. No "rippling shockwave" or ANY muscle movement has been seen in any frame of this film. It's clearly fake. And you'd do well to do your research on Roger Patterson. He was a liar and a thief.
This video is what 60 years old an with all the advancements in technology it's done nothing but reveal more details that weren't possible at the time ...60 years this video deserves its credit .
@thegigglystinkfinger8515 The 1967 film looked like a guy in a costume. This remastered film however looks like bigfoot. Honestly, every time it gets remastered the better it looks.
Lets address Roger getting "Lucky". Some people complain that there is no way that Patterson just took a movie camera and went out and found Bigfoot, and that in itself makes the film fake. But this film was no overnight success. It took Patterson nearly 6 years of searching to see a Bigfoot, and he was out looking for them. Patterson lived in a Bigfoot hotspot. Why would he drive across 2 states to fake a Bigfoot film that he could have faked in his backyard? It’s because Patterson knew where to look. Bluff Creek had hundreds of Bigfoot tracks along it for 9 years before Patty got her picture taken. And Roger had taken a photograph of a track cast that was “17 inches long and 7 1/2 inches across the ball” in that vicinity on October 21, 1964. This time Roger went to Bluff Creek to film recent tracks left by a family of 3. Before he filmed Patty they had been riding the creek for weeks. He used all of that film roll filming their ride, except for the last 59 seconds. So we are lucky we even have that.
Not doubting the authenticity. I question why, with the advanced technology we now have, that videos like this aren’t common? These things live out in the woods or in the mountains right? It’s not like they had a big meeting, every Sasquatch together in the 80s or 90s about taking extra care to avoid being filmed or photographed (like they would even know what that was!) If they are still out there in the large numbers which many people suggest then why and how are each and every one of them avoiding being captured on film? and why would they want to be?
@@colincgcnot many people suggest that there are large numbers of them though, Dr. Krantz and Meldrum said that they are extremely rare and for every Sasquatch there are probably several hundred bears. Whether you find that answer to be too much of a "plot convenience" or not, its definitely possible as we have seen with other rare or previously thought to be extinct species. Even though we have trail cams and stuff how often do you think people hike dozens of miles into dense wilderness to set them up?
The one argument against this films authenticity that just drives me insane goes something like this. "You know its fake". How do you know it's fake?, "Because bigfoot isn't real, so it has to be fake." I don't know if the film is authentic or not, but if you are going to opine about it, please do a little research. I have, for years, and I have not found any credible evidence that debunks it. And don't come at me with Bob Hieronimus, his story changed every time he told it. if anyone has a credible source for a credible debunking I'll happily check it out.
The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists, not on others to debunk a 60 year old video. Hoaxes were vastly complex in old times, more than you can imagine. Look up The Mechanical Turk made in 1770. People back then were very, very smart.
A short history list I compiled of the Bluff Creek tracks: August 1958. Road builders Ray Wallace and Jerry Crew find 16-inch BF tracks all around a parked Caterpillar Tractor 20 miles south of Bluff Creek. The tracks reappear a month later and plaster casts are taken. Weekly thereafter, Jerry sees Bigfoot tracks going from Northwest to Southeast on the same logging road. Ray Wallace finds human-like droppings the size of those a 1200 pound horse would make. Wilbur Wallace, Ray's brother, finds a full 55 gallon oil drum carried to the edge of the road and thrown down the hill. He also finds a 20 foot length of 18" culvert carried some distance away and a 700 pound tire & wheel for a "carry all" which had been rolled for a quarter mile and hurled into a ravine. Fall, 1958. Editor Andrew Genzoli and the senior staff photographer of the Times-Standard see Bigfoot tracks and droppings of monumental proportions like those of a "2 ton bear with chronic constipation." September, 1958. Bigfoot tracks are seen 4 different times on Bluff Creek Road. October 1, 1958. Jerry Crew finds a quarter mile of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and makes casts. October 12, 1958. Ray Kerr and Leslie Breazeale see a BF cross a 20' road in 2 strides and find tracks several miles south of where they are usually seen on Bluff Creek Road. Hired by Ray Wallace to track BF, they redouble their hunting effort but their dogs disappear a few days later and are never seen again. Mid October, 1958. BF tracks are seen again near Bluff Creek. October 23, 1958. BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road once again. October 28, 1958. 2 miles of 16" BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road. October 30, 1958. BF tracks are seen going down a hill from Bluff Creek Road. November 2, 1958. Bob Titmus and Ed Patrick find BF tracks on a Bluff Creek Sandbar. December 18. 1958. Betty Allen finds 6 miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road, expressed fear in her articles. 1959. A husband and wife flying a private plane over Bluff Creek see and follow BF tracks until they pass over the BF making them. August 16, 1959. Bob Titmus finds 300 yards of BF tracks along Bluff Creek Sandbar. August 30, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar. November 1, 1959. Bob Titmus finds even more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar, discovery was 8 years before Patterson filmed the BF in roughly the same location. November 2, 1959. Betty Allen finds BF tracks coming down a canyon and along Bluff Creek. January 30, 1960. Betty Allen finds BF tracks around a shovel loader on Humboldt Fir logging road at Bluff Creek. June 19, 1960. Dr. Charles Johnson and his family find BF tracks on both sides of the Klamath River a half mile west of Bluff Creek.
@spiritualarchitect4276 Wow, There's alot of she said he said non evidence there. Footprints aren't evidence. If you look at the Footprint casts RP made they're just enlarged human feet. ALL primates on the planet have a hallux or divergent big toe EXCEPT for humans. Human feet evolved for walking long distances, sprinting, running and lost the need for a hallux. ALL other primates use a divergent big toe for gripping. holding and climbing. When humans don't wear shoes their toes spread. Tribes people of New Guinea have feet that resemble primates. Pattys toes are aligned just like human feet with no divergent big toe. And copied from a shoe wearing person. The hoaxers and cast makers really had no idea back then. Without any fossil evidence of BF, there's no evolutionary link to anything. That means BF doesn't exist. There are many hundreds of thousands human fossilised bones dating back millions of years but not one fragment of BF. Without any evidence, it proves to be a hoax. By the look of this list, there's alot of tricksters out there and alot of suckers here.
that's a good chronology, but you should check out a comparison of the Crew tracks vs. a known Wallace 'stomper'. There's a side by side comparison pic at a site you can find at the Paranormal World Wiki site. Even though the guy was trying to show they were *not* the same, just a cursory look shows they are. Strip off the excess material around the edges of the Crew tracks, and it *is* the Wallace stomper. Same size, shape, indentations. And can one really believe Bigfoot was actively hanging out at a construction site filled with heavy equipment?
@@jamesravexcept the Wallace's couldn't recreate those foot tracks. "Stompers" aren't going to go deeper than your own tracks, they go less deep. The wooden feet don't work, and never made those tracks.
Maybe one day Bigfoot will hold a press conference and settle all of this for us. Until then, and in lieu of more concrete and comprehensive evidence, I remain open minded yet unconvinced. Really rooting for that press conference though. It would be spectacular television.
I experienced an encounter back in 1998 while driving home. In a area of low land on the Meremac River. There was an area that backed to the woods. I was driving around 10mph and spotted it about a 100 yards away and it started to run at me, I accelerated and it ran directly behind my car and ran into the woods across the road. The next day I was discussing this with a buddy of mine I worked with. He was behind me and saw it as well. It smelled like a skunk, the next day I stopped where it happened. For a wooded area there was no sound and smelled heavy of skunky wet fur. Within a week several spotting occurred in the same area.
Thank you...finally someone that understands what only a few of us do. So many have dismissed the film as fake...yet they cannot see what we see. In my opinion, people that were born and raised in the country...near woods, walked in woods themselves...can see and understand what they are looking at, that the film as authentic...I found people that lived in the towns and big cities always thought it was a fake. I've always known this film was real when i first saw it in 1971 when i was a 8 year old boy...reasoning, We didn't make costumes with "breasts", wide hips...costumes for female anatomy were not done in the 1960's...plus she has "no neck"...her head turns with her shoulders turning (much like apes). I still concur with my 8 year old self at 62.
@@LarsonFamilyFarm-LLC can U get TH-cam?"Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot HoaxRevealed 2005"will educate you if you got the BALLS to learn the truth and reverse yr thinking....but you won't watch ,don't want to learn the truth so poor dumb you.
I can understand the skepticism about Patterson’s luck, but there's strong evidence to suggest that if better footage or encounters have occurred, they may have been hidden from public view. Former police officer David Paulides says “In all my years in law enforcement, I came across enough evidence to know Bigfoot was real, yet I was told directly by superiors to leave it alone, keep it quiet. These are things the public isn’t supposed to know.” Retired park ranger Greg Walter shared a similar experience, stating that staff were told to redirect conversations away from Bigfoot and that reports were often 'filed away' without follow-up. This kind of suppression isn’t unique; former law enforcement officer John Green has noted that government agencies frequently shut down discussions about Bigfoot, even from credible witnesses. Paulides has described the lack of transparency from government bodies as a 'serious question of accountability.' Given these testimonies, it’s reasonable to consider that if other compelling evidence exists, it could be out of public reach by design. So the apparent lack of footage might not just be a question of luck but of access.
I knew from the moment I saw the film as a kid that it is definitely a guy in a suit. Not a real creature. In fact, the whole legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
I was focusing on how the flesh of the leg flexes and bounces as the foot hit the ground with some force right at the moment the creature turns to look back, and it looks like a real flesh and blood animal would look with such movement. This is a real creature.
I'm very much a skeptic, and will remain so until either a live one is found or remains are discovered. Obviously, there would have to be more than one to propagate the species. Could I be wrong? of course, but I could also be right. That's what makes this a fun area for discussion.
@@yukon065 Yes - its certainly a puzzle to me that - so far as I know - no one has credibly stumbled on remains. I was thinking about this in regards to Hurricane Helene - that maybe a BF drowned in the floods and a body recovered.
I'm sure we will but will it be in our lifetime? I remember seeing on the news a report about a man finding a dead fish and told the lifeguard. The lifeguard went to clean up but before doing anything he noticed the fish. It turned out it was a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. If the Internet can help find that story I'd appreciate it because I was just a kid at the time. But man think about it. Imagine seeing a creature of unknown origin and people don't believe you in your lifetime but it did exist.
If this was a fake, they deserve an Oscar. The greatest thing about this movie is that no one, up until this day, we’re able to replicate it with the same quality. Not even with today’s practical effects tech.
Very true, we saw the state of the art in '68 with the Planet of the Apes movies and they're laughable looking compared to Patty. Even now they couldn't do a Patty due to human anatomy preventing it, we're built the opposite of the great apes with our long leg and small torso vs. their short legs and long torso - which is how Patty's built. Not that they're apes, the built is similar.
It was also filmed so badly that it defies the point of a convincing hoax, like, if the suit was so mind-blowing, why would they film it like the Cameraman was having an Epileptic fit??? Had to add that the hernia above the right hand knee is far beyond anything we could do
You idiots it's a man in a suit Because it looks back You'll want to belive so much you repeat each other You start saying PATTY like you know it's either a female or male YOU KNOW Think how silly it is to know that Plus find me a dead one Go on find me a corpse A rotting stinking corpse ? NO.... Thought not Fools
@Uncanny_Mountain You're right. The film was so great it had to be enhanced Gen2, Gen3, remastered CGI. None of that fine detail was there in 1967. The original film looked like a man in a suit. The original hoax just keeps getting better.
To me there is no debate to be had! We here in the UK have large cats in the countryside and our government will not acknowledge their existence. In our case it is a matter of laziness. I hope it is for the right reasons that Sasquatch isn't given species recognition in the States. These magnificent creatures should be given full protection species!
Gorillas In The Mist was made nearly 20 years later. Both the SFX crew that made the gorilla suits for that & the performers inside them said that if that was a suit in the Patterson footage, then it was still far in advance of the tech even all those years down the line.
I absolutely respect the way you have conclusively gone about presenting your evidence. And, I have to agree with you - this could not have been anything but a genuine and as yet unclassified creature. Great video. Look forward to seeing more from you. And best wishes from New Zealand.
I don't understand why people think this is somehow impossible. As if there aren't many types and sizes of monkeys, apes, chimps, baboons etc. all over the world. Especially with different Indian tribes having old oral traditions of them. Even modern Indians seeing them, as my old friend told me about many years ago. They also have oral traditions of mammoth hunting that the same sceptics said was impossible. And lo and behold....
Good video... especially for folks new to the subject...I'm 1000% sure on Sasquatch and other cryptids...but there is still a little bit of doubt on Patty...the no butt crack...and the hands/fingers look a little weird... I think the number one positive for it is she doesn't stumble...or change the gait...or trip a little....she walks so smooth and easy on probably cobble and tree limbs... uneven ground... etc..she's almost laser straight...I think a person in a suit would be falling and tripping and stumbling over thier feet...
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
I'm 99.9% sure the footage is real and have been for a long time. Met Bob Gimlin..seemed like a totally straight shooter! The one thing that I can't deny to myself was the Bob Heironimus thing..his gait is distinct and highly similar! Hmmm
@@northerndelights3113 Yes. Bob H does have the same posture, gait and body ratio as "Patty", despite what a couple TH-camrs have claimed. But what's more telling, imo, is Roger Patterson's past leading up to the filming. For one, he stole the movie camera used in the filming and he mysteriously "lost" the original film reel when asked if forensic analysis could be performed on the film. Also, Patterson claimed to have been working on a "full length Bigfoot movie" not long before the "Patty" film. This gave him the motive to buy a Bigfoot costume. The fact that Patterson had sketches of female Bigfoot in his first published book, which came out well before the PG film is another weird coincidence. And probably worst of all, Patterson personally knew Ray L Wallace, the man who hoaxed the first ever "Bigfoot footprints" in 1958 Humboldt County. Hmmm... And another oddity is that before Wallace faked those prints, there were literally zero "Bigfoot tracks" ever found. I hate to say it but I think there's a better chance of P Diddy being innocent than there is of Bigfoot"s existence at this point. There is no verifiable proof of such a creature.
You pointed out the arm length, hands down to the knees, what you didn't point out is the arms bend in the middle (which is IMPOSSIBLE for a human) a suit would have a shorter upper arms and an extremely long forearm "not bend in the middle", all while there is finger movement(totally impossible in 1967). {Remember this was 10 - 15 years before the first Radio Shack TRS 80 home computer came out} PLUS we all saw how jumpy the film was because Patterson was running and it still outdistanced a running man just by walking! shows us just how huge it really was if you pay attention to details.
Arms do bend in the middle... it's called an elbow. And it's a pretty good suit, but, that's all it is... a suit... with a big mofo inside it. case closed. You can go back to living, now.
@Hutzjohn The guy in the suit doesn't stand up straight. He's hunched over a little making the arms appear longer. They are not outside the normal human range. Your right about the finger movement being impossible for 1967 as the 1967 film doesn't show it. It's not there. The remastered video does. The 1967 film was clearly a man in a suit. The marvels of CGI and AI have bought this video to life.
@@WillRobinson-r7c 🤣🤣🤣🤣NEXT you're gonna tell us God isn't real, or kamala should have won ---- but hey you're entitled to your opinion ---- the 1967 film is clearly NOT a man in a suit
July 1964. Scout Master Joe Christensen Sr., and Boy Scout Camp medic Dick Beathel found (a mile from the camp) 17 inch by 7 1/2 inch bare footprints in the mud and cast them. The stride was around five feet between imprints; five toes. Photo of casts were published in the Modesto Bee on July 16, 1964. The location was 7 miles northeast of Mariposa, Mariposa County, California Summer 1964. Dave Blake often finds BF tracks at Laid Meadow at Blake and Tregoning Logging operation west of Bluff Creek. A culvert 4 feet in diameter and 20 feet long is thrown into the canyon and 450 pound barrels of diesel fuel are moved around. August 21, 1964. Roger Patterson finds and casts 17 inch tracks with a 52 inch stride on Laird Meadow Road. September, 1964. Samuel Brewer Jr. finds and casts a 15½ inch BF tracks with a 47 inch stride along Bluff Creek. Fall, 1964. Dave Blake sees BF tracks around his logging equipment every morning for a week. A trailer load of 18 inch culverts is overturned while men are working nearby. 1965. Jay Rowland finds BF tracks along Bluff Creek a short distance from Notice Creek. 1965 On Notice Creek near where it runs into Bluff Creek, Indian road grader operator Dewey Haupe hears distant night whistles while bear hunting with Titmus, one whistle would cause a return whistle from opposite direction. Titmus tells Haupe it's BF. July, 1965. Steve Sanders and 2 others sleeping in a tent awake to see a large finger or stick opening their tent flap. Their yells scare it off. Investigating the next day, they find BF tracks 17 inches long and 7 inches wide around their tent at Blue Lake near Bluff Creek. September, 1965. Mark Karr said he drove his vehicle into a tree to avoid hitting a Bigfoot that was in the road. 1966. Jason Edwards parents told him that they saw a family of 4 BF while hunting bear in the Bluff Creek area. Two adults and a medium size and smaller one. 1966. Richard Sides sees a BF squatting at Bluff Creek drinking water with cupped hands. 1966. A logging truck driver who didn't want his name used because of his employment claimed he was knocked down after running smack into the chest of a Bigfoot on the front portch of his cabin. His friend, Bud Jensen supported his story and described an eleven-inch handprint that was also found on the porch door. Fall, 1966. Jay Roland sees BF tracks on a road a Scorpion Creek in the Bluff Creek area. October 25, 1966. Dan Mullens finds BF tracks and an unopened case of oil cans crushed on Notice Creek near Bluff Creek.
Bluff Creek tracks continued: 1962 - Enis Schofield described how his fencing was torn down fencepost by fencepost the week after it was erected nearby the Bluff Creek Resort. Each post was pulled up out of its concrete piling in the ground which Schofield said required unheard of strength and was probably done because it blocked a pathway the Big Feet people used to reach the creek every night. Pointing toward the hillside, he told Betty Allen, "They come down the hill there, you can see their tracks and they seem to go down to the creek to drink or maybe to go up it, because no tracks come back up the hill. They come out somewheres else," he told Allen. Schofield told the reporter they didn't feel safe barbequeing outdoors anymore and were contemplating selling their cabin to Saunders boys, owners of the Resort on the main road. August 19, 1962. Skip Clark finds and casts Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek sandbar. September 26, 1962. Bob Titmus finds miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and in the creek bottom itself. 1963. Thomas Sourwine says a 300 pound boulder was used to repeatedly smash road building equipment parked at the time near Bluff Creek upper road. 1963. Pat Graves follows BF tracks for 5 miles from Laird Meadow to Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek. Sticks 1¼ in thick are found broken in the tracks. 1963. Dave Blake finds BF tracks where a barrel of diesel fuel was thrown off the road. 1963. BF tracks 15 inches long are found at Bluff Creek logging operations, with boxes of spikes thrown around and sticks of dynamite bitten into. June 13, 1963. BF tracks 16 inches long are found crossing Notice Creek near Bluff Creek only 100 feet away from where 3 men were sleeping in a car. June 30, 1963. BF tracks 10 to 15 inches long are found and cast in the Bluff Creek area. August, 1963. BF tracks are found on Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek bridge. October 1963. Al Hodgson finds a set of BF tracks a few hundred yards above the Notice Creek bridge at Bluff Creek sandbar. The sandbar was washed away in the 1964 flood.
Awesome video, and I agree on all point. As far as the biomechanics of the walking pattern goes, it would make no sense to fake it. For what purpose? I've tried to do the Patterson Bigfoot walk and could only do about two steps, and that's while hanging onto a table ledge. Also, and this is my original theory, if the film was faked, then there would have been THREE people ( Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and the 'man in the Bigfoot suit', as well as three horses, not two ) out in the Bluff Creek area filming and riding around on horses, not two people. All those days out in the woods and not a single person; hiker, camper, hunter, worker etc... ever claimed to have seen Patterson with two other people, because doing so would have sunk the Patterson Bigfoot film like a torpedo. After all these years no one has ever claimed, and that would be a very big claim, to have seen three people.
7. Why would anyone go through the trouble of making a suit so realistic that it could fool a Hollywood makeup artist if they were only going to use it once in an unstable, one-minute-long video?
Just as she turns it's the shockwave travelling up her leg as she plants her right leg on the ground that did it for me. A huge WOW moment for me. This thing is REAL!
Have you ever heard of anyone finding a dead Canadian lynx in the woods? Animals decompose remarkably fast and it is surprising the number of different mammals, including presumably 100% herbivores, that will eat bones for the calcium contained therein, including ungulates. Do a search here on TH-cam and you can find a deer eating a human rib bone at a forensics body farm run by the Tennessee Department of Justice. Sasquatch tend to live in family groups, and it is quite possible they may bury their dead. In South Africa a somewhat similar hominin, Homo Naledi, buried their dead more than 300,000 years ago.
@@cabininthewoods517 I believe the film is real, but I also believe Bigfoot to be supernatural beings created by fallen angels. That might explain why they don't find a dead specimen.
ANSWER ME THIS: Why did it take TWO men to shoot this footage? And why, if the subject and nature of the film, was so earth-shattering and of such ultimate consequence, did the camera operator NOT follow the "creature" along for more footage, instead of just 53 seconds at 18FPS or 59 seconds at 16 FPS? Why just let it walk away?
Aren't big foot known for being remarkably elusive and will notice you long before you notice it and try to remain visually hidden? Makes you wonder why this particular big foot had a couldn't care less attitude about being spotted and made no effort to get out of view once it looked over and noticed them.
True but after Robert Morgan and Nino Cochise analyzed the film way back they summized Patty is doing the mother bird thing by drawing the hunters away from her young and by the way to all the knucklehead critics non-believers and trolls here you defeat your purpose by simply being here you express a secret underlying interest in the topic also FYI Patty is not the only Bigfoot in the film but it matters not they do exist get over it you'll be ok
@@stevendphoto But is the BORDER BLUE or RED? I remember vividly seeing that mag when it came out (1968?) at my uncles house. And I remember it being BLUE. Yet when I see the cover online it is RED. This makes no sense to me as my favorite color is RED. How could I have confused this memory?
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
We may not find a body until after we're gone. I saw on the news once about some man finding a dead fish on the beach. The man told the lifeguard so they can clean it up. But the lifeguard recognized the fish. It turned out to be a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. Imagine finding a creature of unknown origin once but not again in your lifetime until after so long.
Honestly, I am on the fence with it. It does look like a real animal in the film because if you look at the legs and knees you can see the ligaments tightening and relaxing and they are in exactly the right position and doing exactly the right thing and move as if you are seeing muscle rippling under skin under hair. There are spots on it where the hair looks less dense and you can see the shine on the skin surface. For instance around 1:11 where it's leg muscles are tensed and you can see muscle definition. They wouldn't had been able to replicate that and we have to use CGI now to do that. It appears to be female and ruffly something between a silver back gorilla and a human. While it makes that awkward face and walks off. You also see it's rather large scapula (shoulder blades) moving in it's back.
Let’s address 3 typical skeptic topics How did Patterson film a Bigfoot when no one else could? Why did the Bigfoot not run away before hand? How come the Bigfoot did not run away afterwards? The answer is Horses. When Patterson and Gimlin rode along the creek there was a large tree lying beside it. The root system of that tree was “as large as a house”. It was not until Roger rode around the roots that he spotted the Bigfoot squatting down by the creek water. His horse spotted it at the same time and reared up. This happened in the first few seconds before Bob Gimlin even saw the creature, which by then was standing up looking at them. It instantly climbed the bank and started walking off. Because the smell of the 3 horses overpowered the humans scent, Patty heard and smelled the horses, but not the men. Patty may have known what horses were. She certainly would not be afraid of them. Patty and her kind were king of the forest, and as such would be afraid of no one. Patty may of never smelled horses before. Or she may have seen and smelled horses before, but maybe they were wild horses? If so, they would not have been wearing horseshoes and thus would sound different to her, she being a creature who would be well aware of all the sounds of the forest. Either way, in her curiosity she waited for the horses to come into view, and suddenly seeing humans on them, she started to leave the scene, walking away from them. According to her footprints, the farther away she walked, the wider her stride became, and the faster she walked. Once again, she would not be afraid of the men, as much as they were a nuisance to her and her kind. Roger did say that she looked back at him BEFORE he even started filming, and that she gave him a aggravated look like an unhappy baseball umpire would.
@@spiritualarchitect4276 why did,on "Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005"on TH-cam,did they reveal how when why by who they hoaxes the bigfoot sighting if they didn't Hoax it 🤔🤯?Another skeptucs question 😆🤭
@@spiritualarchitect4276 Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005,on TH-cam the hoaxers tell you everything about how they hoaxed this.....Have you watched it?
The way it moves is another indicator it's real. You can tell it has tremendous weight from the centre of gravity it exudes. 700lb was the estimate so you can imagine the male is 1000 plus. The main argument against for me is we don't have scientific proof.
@@Uncanny_Mountain Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005 ,on TH-cam shuts up the arrogant bigmouth self appointed patty experts instantly 🤣🤣🤣👍.Don't expect thx for showing them what fucktards they are tho lol
One of the things I find compelling is the sense of mass it gives me while moving. And as someone else stated, the ripple you see throughout her leg when she turns her head and jams her leg. I've also watched clips where shortly after it happened a guy walked the same path at Bluff Creek with Patty superimposed doing the same. I think the guy was 6'-6" and Patty's thigh was about as big as his waist.
the only thing that would be hard to believe is that she allowed herself to be seen in the middle of the day in an exposed river bed. if they were out there on horses... she would've heard and smelled them long before they ever seen her, giving her plenty of time to leave the area. Her reaction is one of surprise, like she was unaware of them until they practically bumped into her. And then she just walks away like a crooked politician avoiding a news crew.
It could also be argued that the sound of horses, often wild animals themselves, didn't alarm her & the smell of the horses covered the human scent. Patterson said it was hot, the horses had been working hard & were sweating a lot. You're right it doesn't seem natural that she would be so casual. A reasonable explanation for that could be that there were other sasquatch in the trees nearby, so she simply calmly walked towards them. Let's also assume that she's intelligent. Equally intelligent as a human, but in different ways. She may have decided that moving slowly away would be more likely to result in her escape than running away, similar to encountering a bear or mountain lion - creatures which they must encounter frequently if sasquatch are real.
One thing you wasn't mentioned is that you can also see the toes flexing upwards with each footstep, which is another aspect that could not be reproduced with a suit. I believe that if it was possible to make such an elaborate and convincing suit, it would require a lot of animatronics that hadn't even been invented back in 1967.
EGG...ZACKLEY¡!! IF SOLID ENOUGH TO PROTECT FEET FROM ROCKS... WAY WAY TOO STIFF TO DORSIFLEX UPWARDLY... EVEN IF SOFT AS POSSIBLE AND NOT PROTECTIVE... ..STILL TOO STIFF
Wrong. The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
@@Demonizer5134 The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to stop believing these videos from affiliates of Bigfoot merch peddlers.
@@cabininthewoods517 Nice Farmers Tan @ 5:15 Just to let you know, my Brother saw a Dogman when driving down a less traveled road in Mercer County, KY. He was riding shotgun (around the of 15 or 16...couldn't have his license yet), while his girlfriend's older sister was the driver taking him to see his girlfriend out in the country. When the driver screamed and my brother put his arm out to slow her forward movement by having to slam on the brakes. She had her high beams on when they came to a complete stop...what they both say to this day (the older sister usually doesn't want to talk about it), was a bi-pedal wolf/German Shepherd like dog was walking across the road in a hurky jurky movement (this a key part of other encounters; like it walked like a marionette puppet...meaning like it didn't belong in our dimension). My brother started weeping when he came home and avoided Johnson Pike altogether. He said that after the car came to a stop, the creature nibbling on some kinda berry off a tree limb over hanging the country road. He then stated the creature's legs were hocked or 'bent backwards' like dog legs but clearly walking upright. I asked him how tall and to draw it (My family is full of artist and my brother had 2 art scholarships). He guessed it being between 6'8" and 7' 4' (he later went back to the spot in the daytime and found their tire marks and the overhanging limb and was able to determine it was tad over 7' tall. He drew this with a dog lower body, but with a more human upper body with large hands like a raccoon and a wolf/German Sheperd mix type face. One note, they had their high beams on and slammed on the breaks to not hit the creature...so he said it was about12 yards away from the front bumper. He then stated the thing looked them and ran so eloquently and fast that it almost appeared it was gliding as the 'jurkyness' had left its type of physical motor skills...It then cleared a 5-foot barbed wire fence and disappeared into the dark forest. My Brother has been on A&E and the Travel story (which I was a witness) when he 'ghost' hunted. However, now he runs one of the Biggest Cryptid Conventions in America with celebrities, books, evidence, etc. His convention is aptly named Cryptid Con (not to be confused with Crypticon). Hit him up... November 23-24, 2024 Clarion Conference Center North Lexington, KY.
I was skeptical about every video ever seen. Then I saw this almost 60 year old Patterson film and was convinced Bigfoot is real. That was no man in a monkey suit; too detailed.
Exactly, yes. Too tall, too broad, hunched over, short legs, big torso, long arms on wide shoulders, head turns, etc. Impossible to reach for human anatomy and get this realistic in '60s f/x or even today because fact is our human anatomy can't fit suits built that way. We're the opposite of ape anatomy; we have short arms, long legs, small torso. There's just no way to do it, the kids in denial are just clueless and never saw Harry and the Henderson for proof.
Totally agree with your reasons and conclusions. The subject in the PGF is a 'real' Bigfoot. I would only add that the limb proportions are not absolutely off the scale for humans, but most humans have different arm/leg ratios to 'Patty'. Great piece of work. Not too complex, not trying to cover too many things at once. The reasons given here are quite sufficient to prove the point to all except those who don't want to believe. Well done in presenting this video.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824 Then you clearly know nothing about this subject. I said that there are humans who fit with Patty's ratios, but they are far from a majority. There are far more humans who don't match Patty's arms/legs ratios.
The technology was not available back then to fake this video and nobody would have thought to try to imitate a female creature at that. It moves too perfect to be fake especially being filmed 57 years ago. Even the movies that are made don't come close.
@@MichaelVaporis Oh, good grief. 1. There's nothing special about the gait. The truth is, I just watched a video of an interview with Bob Heironimus, and in that video, he walks EXACTLY like that. 2. Okay, so the costume/suit has never been found. And a likely explanation for that is that Patterson simply destroyed it. 3. It's not hard to imagine how the description of the suit might differ from the man who claimed he made it, and the man who claimed he wore it, after such a large period of time has passed. Their description of it has many similarities, too. 4. I see no muscular movement. The film quality is too poor and the subject is too far away. But even if there IS, it's easy to replicate that effect. There is an old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath suits and costumes to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur or fabric. 5. Patterson was a known thief and liar. Greg Long's gook "The Making of Bigfoot" takes a long look at his character. Apparently, Patterson cheated everybody. He may have run a regular check fraud routine, but his standard approach was simply to run up huge bills and then refuse to pay. Summary: “Roger Patterson’s character fails the smell test,” writes Long. “Sum up all the information about Roger Patterson, and it comes down to two simple points. One, he had the ability to conceive of and create a Bigfoot suit, and two, he was a crook.”
Did I miss you mentioning the breasts? Who would make a suit (especially) in that day and age and add breasts? Complicated, time consuming and I'm assuming very expensive. Great points brought up in the video. Sub'd !
Gullible. The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
@AndreSkondras-l8j True. Stan Winston is very knowledgeable about costumes and special fx. But I don't need Stan's expertise to easily tell that it's a rather bad hoax.
Even if bigfoot is real we might not find a body in our lifetime. That's what sucks. There was a story on the news about a man finding a dead fish on the beach. The man called the lifeguard to clean it up. But the lifeguard recognized the fish. It turns out it was a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. Imagine that but with bigfoot. Yeah, that would suck.
@@philiplindsay225 Find Chris Murphy and Cliff Crook did a 1999 analysis of the film. They claimed that a buckle could be seen in the film that showed Patty was a man.
Patterson searched for years, and could have done a hoax in his backyard. These two were 2 states away from their home. They were called at home about tracks in the area, and had no time to procure a costume.
I used to be a skeptic of this particular famous footage but I kept an open mind to it all. I was skeptical but more or less it was just because of the footage quality itself..then they did the clean up and stabilization to the film and it really enhances the image of the "Patty" creature and why I now think it's a genuine shot of a Bigfoot is the muscle mass now being visible _within_ the fur. That step she does JUST as she begins to turn and glance, you can see the leg muscles ripple as soon as the leg plants onto the ground when she faces the camera. It's not from any suit or anything else I would call artificial.. but _real_ muscle jiggle and that alone is what now makes me a believer in this footage. I think it's weird..or even frightening for people to want to admit that it's genuine, because to admit to yourself the film is genuine, you'd have to admit to yourself that yes.. amazingly, Bigfoot actually exists.
Your thoughtful response and open-minded approach are truly appreciated. It’s great to see someone analyze the details so carefully, especially when it comes to aspects like muscle movement and the ripple effect visible in the enhanced footage. Those finer points, like the natural jiggle and anatomical correctness, are compelling pieces of evidence that align with what you’d expect from a living, biological creature, not a fabricated suit. I also completely agree with your observation about the psychological hurdle people face in accepting the footage’s authenticity. If it’s genuine, it does challenge deeply held assumptions, and for many, that’s a difficult leap to make. Thank you for sharing your perspective-your journey from skepticism to belief adds so much depth to the conversation. 🙂
Let's not forget the footprint evidence. The footprints have dermal ridges, the bone structure is different from humans and they walk around the Forrest barefoot.
In 1967 Patterson and Gimlin would not have added breasts on a costume. It would’ve been an extra problem that they would have to deal with, I have seen clearer videos where Patty’s breasts move up and down, looking just as natural as a woman walking topless. Their film is 100% real.
We know that Patterson not only knew about the William Roe encounter (during which a female Bigfoot was spotter by a hunter) but he also drew an illustration of it. On top of that the PG film has several more similarities to the Roe encounter such as the way it begins with the Bigfoot crouching andunaware of the people observing, the unhurried pace away, and the casual glances back as she leaves. That Patterson is known to have intended to film recreations of famous encounters for his documentary makes all of this more then a little suspicious also Roger was shown an artists rendering of a female Sasquatch by John Green in 1964-5 and had drawings of female Sasquatchs in his book Do Abominable Snowmen of America really Exist 1966.
@@Aran.Rinzeihe drew mostly males in his book, and sculpted a male head. Means nothing that Patty was female. The males probably wouldn't have got caught like that.
It’s never a costume. 41 inch stride length in a suit like that, wearing nfl shoulder pads, big fake feet and at least padded out twice as wide as a human. Over a rocky woody creek bed.
Let’s address this head on. 1. Why haven’t Bigfoot skeletons been found? Finding skeletal remains of any large animal, let alone an elusive one, is exceedingly rare. Consider these points: - Decomposition: In wilderness environments, remains are quickly scavenged by animals, insects, and bacteria. Bones deteriorate even faster in wet, acidic soils, such as those found in the forests where Bigfoot is often reported. - Rarity of Finds: Even with large known species like bears, finding intact skeletons is rare. When was the last time someone stumbled upon a complete bear skeleton in the wild? - Behavioral Hypotheses: Some researchers theorize that Bigfoot, like other intelligent primates, may deliberately avoid leaving remains. Some animals are known to hide their dead, a behavior that would make finding remains even harder. 2. The suppression of evidence The idea that Bigfoot remains would automatically make it to public knowledge is naive, given numerous claims of suppression. - David Paulides: In his book “The Hoopa Project”, Paulides mentions reports of physical evidence being confiscated or dismissed by authorities. He describes how indigenous witnesses and researchers are often ignored or ridiculed when they report tangible findings. - Peter Byrne: This respected Bigfoot researcher recounts in interviews how potential evidence, including bones, has mysteriously disappeared after being sent for analysis. - Anthropological Bias: Scientists working within mainstream institutions are hesitant to publish findings that might jeopardize their careers. Even if remains were found, the lack of institutional support or outright dismissal would make it hard for the public to know. 3. Why you wouldn’t know if evidence existed - Government Suppression: If Bigfoot were real, it could represent a species that might necessitate massive environmental protections. This would disrupt logging, mining, and other industries. As Paulides and others suggest, the stakes could incentivize keeping such discoveries quiet. - Media Ridicule: The topic of Bigfoot is treated as a joke in popular culture. Even credible evidence is buried under ridicule or labeled as hoaxes before the public takes it seriously. - Access Issues: Bones or other evidence would likely be discovered in remote areas where few people venture. The average person doesn’t have the opportunity or resources to verify such findings. To sum up, the lack of a discovered skeleton doesn’t invalidate the possibility of Bigfoot. If no one questions why we rarely find bear skeletons, the assumption that Bigfoot skeletons would be plentiful is deeply flawed. Furthermore, evidence may exist but is ignored, suppressed, or discredited-making your certainty a reflection of ignorance rather than proof of absence. As Einstein said: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
@@cabininthewoods517 Actually, it was Martin Reese, a British Cosmologist that said that. And your pitiful attack on a fundamental instrument of legitimate scientific research is quite laughable. Another champion of science often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and/or evidence... so if you expect anyone, especially science, to take you seriously, you'd best pony up with that proof or learn to live with the rightfully appropriate derision that you get.
@@RockwellRhodesAs a Native American, Cherokee & Chickasaw, living in the Midwest, we have a bounty of black bears, yet I have never seen one. We have a bounty of mountain lions, yet I have never seen one. Both avoid humans for the most part. I have never seen a skeleton of either. My ancestors, both the Cherokee & Chickasaw, spoke of this creature as a real entity. Much more intelligent than considered. To the Chickasaw they are violent; to the Cherokee friendly. To discredit a shared story hypothesis, we share names of stories & story structures, with some of our fables, yet, when it comes to this creature we do not. It has been considered they may be an ancient species of giant ape. If we have no base of DNA & genome to potentially compare a find to, then it is left either unknown, or inconclusive, with consideration of contamination or expiration of viable material. It would be very difficult to classify with no file of sequencing. Per our stories they could speak, & use tools. They had communities, & were extremely reclusive. Scotland, Russia, & parts of Asia have a similar creature. For a bunch of noble savages, considered today even by some anthropologists & pseudo historians to be nothing more than primitive remnants of a caveman past, when we speak about such a sacred being, we do not mention them in mocking manners as a fable.
The image of Patty just before she goes out of frame, from behind is the most impressive and irrefutable evidence of a real Sasquatch. The huge circumference of the ankles, the huge calf muscles and very low on the leg compared to a humans. The massive buttocks, the massive back muscles, especially the trapezius region. Also the strip of dark hair from the buttocks to the head that is a different color than the rest of the hair, some animals have this feature along their spine. You can easily see the weight of the creature in each step that is much heavier than any human and lastly the gait of course.
@alextaylor8776 despite what some might say here, and whether this video is fake or not, and I think it is real, these creatures exist. It's only a matter of time before we capture one or get undeniable evidence. I saw one about 16 years ago, but I'm from England and hadn't heard of BF for nearly forty years. I had no idea what I was looking at. I was dumbfounded. I wish I had the money to return to Canada and spend my life searching for these animals because they are magnificent. I've invested in some DNA research that will be revealed soon. I don't understand why the people who think this is stupid or a fairytale bother wasting their time watching BF videos. I don't search out fairy videos to discredit people. I know what I saw, it wasn't blurry, and it wasn't a bear. I wished I'd acted quicker and gone to get my camera, but I was stunned.
Interesting take! But if you watch closely, the biomechanics and gait in the PG film have been studied and don’t align with how a typical human body moves. The stride length, fluid arm swing, and knee lift don’t match a 6'5" human in a suit-unless someone’s found a way to casually rewrite the laws of biomechanics. Might be worth a second look with that in mind! 🙂
@@cabininthewoods517 but be honest, while this figure is walking, as he turns to look over his right shoulder, don't you think that looks totally HUMAN? An animal would not typically look over their shoulder like this. An animal that big would have no reason to. Looking over the shoulder (probably looking at the camera man filming) is a total human behavior. Trust me, I find this subject as well as Dogman fascinating and mysterious. I HOPE they ARE real, because how fun is it to think they are out there, and how fun and exciting it would be to see one!? But, unfortunately, growing up in the woods of Northern Michigan, I have never seen neither Bigfoot or Dogman. 😊
I didn't think they had monkey suits that look that realistic in the 70's you can actually see the muscle in the back & BAC arm and the mange on the fur looks natural to me
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."[179] 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."[180] Napier gives several reasons for his and others' skepticism[181] 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".[182] Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.[183] (In response, Barbara Wasson criticized Napier's logic at length.)[184] He adds, "I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus."[180] The skeptical views of Grieve and Napier are summarized favorably by Kenneth Wylie (and those of Bayanov and Donskoy negatively) in Appendix A of his 1980 book, Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon.[185] -Wikipedia, "Patterson-Gimlin film" ---- British primatologist John R. Napier, otherwise sympathetic to Bigfooters, thought the biomechanics of Patty’s gait pointed to a hoax-“The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis. There are too many inconsistencies.” Although he did admit he “could not see the zipper.” Daegling, after analyzing the film frame by frame with an expert in hominid locomotion, came to an analogous conclusion: “It is a testament to human ingenuity and mischief rather than to the presence of an undiscovered species.” www.bc.edu/bc-web/sites/bc-magazine/summer-2024-issue/features/tracking-bigfoot.html
And Napier said all this before Lucy was discovered, and upended anthropologists thinking of how humans evolved. They thought brain came before bipedalism, so a creature showing the opposite, like Patty and Lucy, was against the then consensus. Piltdown man fooled such scientists as Napier and Daegling for 30 years, before being proven a hoax. I find it ironic that science got fooled by piltdown man and put in textbooks, but decry Patty, even though she's a perfect representation of early hominids, which Patterson knew nothing about.
Napier said all that before Lucy was discovered, proving patty as a hybrid creature was likely. Science got fooled for 30 years by Piltdown Man, and even wrote it in textbooks until better examination in the 50s uncovered the hoax. I find it ironic that Piltdown man was believed by science, even with physical remains(!), but can't see Patty was real. Daegling is biased against the film to start with.
Napier said that before Lucy was discovered. Completely shook up the evolution paradym- Daegling was biased against the pg film to start with. Don't forget science was fooled by Piltdown Man for 30 years. Ironic they don't believe Patty is real.
Dr Meldrum also found that Patty had an old injury to her right upper thigh that bulged as she walked. Notice how the man in the bigfoot suit reenactment never looks back? The whole area is extremely rocky, yet Patty does look back for about 2,5 strides? She knows the area well. Here is a video that M.K. Davis, who has studied this film for many years (also a Bigfoot researcher) and Blayne Tyler (bigfoot researcher) found in the Patty footage : More Bigfoot. Video is from Duke of World Bigfoot Central. Link : th-cam.com/video/lQSOrsA0l0g/w-d-xo.html Now tell me just how Patterson/Gimlin got all those extra Bigfoot costumes in various sizes and using pack horses, got them in that canyon. They didn't. The only living person I actually know, that wore a Bigfoot costume is Keith Crabtree. He played the Fouke Monster in the 1972 movie The Legend of Boggy Creek. He too is a researcher. Course there was Harry and the Hendersons. 1987 release , 20 years after the Patty film. Still both fall short of the actual muscle movement etc. as has been pointed out :))
@@Rags2Itches There is no evidence BF has existed. That means it was a guy in a costume. The film from 1967 was ordinary at best. This remastered video is a work of art and looks like a real BF. it's gone from hoax to an even better hoax.
@@emeraldfox7175 people have d I e d in remote locations, wouldn’t a Bigfoot have left remains where we could find them? I doubt they keep track of every member of their species.
Love the new hobby and authentic nature of your approach to the subject. I think it be great if you reach out to Justin fom the channel mountain beast mysteries. It be a match made in heaven
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but your arguments are not solid. Your last point, "6. Scientists believe the film's authentic" does not stand the test of debate, and edges close to the appeal to authority logical fallacy. You provide a list of believers who call themselves scientists, and you provide an equal numbered list of skeptics who call themselves scientists, but then you reference only the ones who are believers. That's not closing your case with fact, it's closing your case with a set of opinions. Even if they are educated opinions, we don't get to hear the educated opinions that counter their peers.
Here’s the issue with your comment: 1. Non-committal stance ("Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't") - That’s a weak rebuttal with no evidence to counter the points presented. 2. Appeal to Authority Claim - Referring to experts in fields like biomechanics isn’t a fallacy; it’s referencing educated, informed perspectives. Unlike opinions, these analyses are grounded in observable and measurable details from the film. 3. "Set of Opinions" Argument - Expert conclusions, based on relevant study, aren’t equivalent to general skepticism. Simply listing skeptics without fact-based analysis adds nothing. This evidence supports authenticity in a way skeptics often avoid.
@@cabininthewoods517 1) Non-committal stance: That's a problem for you, perhaps, but it's not a problem of logic when there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I would be much weaker if I said, "absolutely," one way or another, based on an underwhelming absence of conclusive evidence. 2) You state that the opinion of professionals is conclusive evidence. It's only an appeal to authority, which is a formal logical fallacy. Especially when Bigfootists invoke Jeff Meldrum, who makes a living leveraging the bigfoot industry. 3) Again, expert opinion is not the same as fact. If these experts could prove that bigfoot exists, they wouldn't spend years trying to convince skeptics. They could just point to the thing and say, "There it is." So, yeah, we don't have one to compare the PG subject to, so we don't really have what it takes to prove its existence, especially considering the quality of the video. I know, I know, "muscle definition" and all that, but that's an interpretation, not an objective measurement. For all you know, it's a man in a costume stuffed with newspaper. You can't really get away with doing that with a gorilla or a tiger or an elephant, but plenty of people have done it with "bigfoot," especially considering we don't actually have one to make an honest comparison with. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. No one has facts enough to conclude one way or another.
Here's a common sense reason- suits weren't good enough then or now to show muscles under a suit. Also, her tracks had been seen both before and after the film, when Patterson wasn't present and when he was deceased.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 "Showing muscle" is your interpretation of the movement, not fact that anyone has ever proven. Still, I'm open to the possibility it is real. I saw an interview with Bob Gimlin who threw out that the tracks may have been from a family, and that maybe the female walked that way to try and distract the men on horseback in a decoy direction, like some mother birds do with the broken wing act. I think that's entirely possible.
The other part that really gets me is the way her right arm swings and the hand brushes her thigh. I think it is her thumb, it has worn away the fur or hair down so much that the lighter skin color shows through. That's something she has probably done unconsciously over the years as she walks. I wonder if we will ever get to an understanding of the evolution of these creatures? Are they a branch off from the homo sapien tree - or something else entirely?
Thank you for mentioning this fascinating detail! There’s probably enough additional points to do a second part in this video series. As for what these creatures are, to the best of my understanding they’re part human, part ape, and possibly part something else that’s hard to fathom.
There is a lump on her right thigh. Someone has pointed out that the fur is rucked up at the end of the hand stroke on the thigh and the hair has gathered in a bunch. That is possible. Others say that the lump is a herniated muscle. Doesn't seem to affect her walk though? Yes lots to go and make a 2nd video! Have seen this video? I only just found it myself. Its 5 years old but worth a watch. The part following Bill Munn's analysis of the original film loaned to him by Mrs Patterson is fascinating and proves beyond doubt that Patty is real. th-cam.com/video/uhqyP27WuF4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SandreTheTeacher
Some find it easier not to face facts, and that will always be true I think. I’ve found it fruitless to let such folks bother me. “Feigned disbelief is far more palatable to the lazy mind than an honest examination of the facts.” -John R. Melbor
Roger Patterson mentioned that a logging company had hired hunters to get rid of the Sasquatch in that area and that they had captured Patty’s kid and shot them both the at the time Patty was filmed. She was trying to get people’s attention on her to save her kid.
I have no doubt at all that these creatures exist!... Ive never encountered a Big Foot, but I have seen what I now believe to be a Dogman, TWICE!.... And No, I'm not some Goof Ball, Crazy Person...
Oh, yeah... that's right, you never NEVER heard about any "dog men" when people first started talking about big smelly apes lurking in the forests of America and on the slopes of the Himalayas. Another evolution to bolster a sad hoax.
I think a man in a suit would have difficulty not tripping over something. Visibility would be terrible looking out through a mask. Patty shows no concern about obstacles she might stumble over because she has unobstructed vision.
I'm not being perverted, but if that's a gorilla suit, then why would they go to great lengths to put female breasts on the torso? If they actually did that, then they'd look cone shaped in the era this footage was taken.
Didn't a guy come out at some point in time saying that that was him in a suit? He said they never paid him either but that everyone around that area knows the actual truth and they laugh at everyone who thinks this stuff is real
@@Johnny_Bee Look up the Charlie Gemora suit from the 1940s. It looks like muscles, but it's actually water bags they used. It's so easy to duplicate the patty costume. The suit that Bob Heironimus wore in Patterson footage was padded. Look at butt cleft area. it's padding. Look at leg of patty can see Bob's Wallet. They head is a modified helmet as well.
@@Johnny_Bee Oh, good grief. 1. There's nothing special about the gait. The truth is, I just watched a video of an interview with Bob Heironimus, and in that video he walks EXACTLY like that. 2. Okay, so the costume/suit has never been found. And a likely explanation for that is that Patterson simply destroyed it. 3. It's not hard to imagine how the description of the suit might differ from the man who claimed he made it, and the man who claimed he wore it, after such a large period of time has passed. Their description of it has many similarities too. 4. I see no muscular movement. The film quality is too poor and the subject too far away. But even if there IS, it's easy to replicate that effect. There is an old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath suits and costumes to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur or fabric. 5. Patterson was a known thief and liar. Greg Long's gook "The Making of Bigfoot" takes a long look at his character. Apparently, Patterson cheated everybody. He may have run a regular check fraud routine, but his standard approach was simply to run up huge bills and then refuse to pay. Summary: “Roger Patterson’s character fails the smell test,” writes Long. “Sum up all the information about Roger Patterson, and it comes down to two simple points. One, he had the ability to conceive of and create a Bigfoot suit, and two, he was a crook.”
I've studied physical anthropology, and skulls specifically. Please (!) do a comparison with the Peking Man skull (Homo Erectus). In the Patterson-Gimlin film (frame 350) one can see the distinct cheekbones and the outward arching jawbones, the pointed head, as well as the cranial indentation of the temple area. Even the big wide mouth is a match. The only real difference between the Peking Man skull and Pattys facial structure is the size (she's bigger). Interesting fact: In the Patterson-Gimlin film one can also see collarbones, and where they fit to the ribcage.
3:58 I'm saying that this video is hoaxed or anything, because i do in fact want to believe that it's genuine; however, the long arms could simply be due to arm extensions.
No, because they extend the forearm, so the elbow would not bend in the middle. Patty has perfect functioning arms and a graceful swing. Definitely not arm extenders.
Good eye! Fascinating how the many qualified scientists who’ve reviewed the film over the years never caught that, don’t you think? Now they can rest easy, knowing the 60 year mystery has finally been solved, thanks to the expert analysis of “Joe Blow”. Excellent work sir. 🙂
In the ARMY my step count was 48, that's 48 times my right foot touched the ground every 100 meters. That's 96 steps in 3937 inches. That equates to 41 inches per step... Im 6'2" tall AND would have gear on...
I just find it hard to accept that with all the camera phones out there, nobody's captured any visual evidence as impressive as this 57 year old piece of film. Never locating evidence of a dead sasquatch is troubling, too. However, even if the Patterson-Gimlin film did turn out to be a fake, I would offer my congratulations to everybody involved for pulling off such an amazing hoax that all these years still hasn't been debunked to everybody's satisfaction, and continues to generate absolutely fascinating debate. I never tire of this discussion.
Have to agree, the idea of creatures this size inhabiting large areas of North America without being subjected to serious scientific study or research seems unlikely.
@@gallery7596 My encounter was back in 1998, it was literally only 20-30 seconds while driving. There would have been almost impossible to film it on a flip phone at 4am in low light. At the rate it was running at, I didn't want to hang around.
In 1975, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District, Environmental Resources Section) released the Washington Environmental Atlas (aka: Provisional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory of the State of Washington 1975), a 114 page book that cost over $200,000 to make and over 3 years to research and compile. The atlas contains official maps, graphs, status levels, reports, etc. and lists Sasquatch (Bigfoot) as part of the flora/ fauna of the Pacific Northwest.
They never said that, but put in a cartoon about mythical creatures being included. A bit expensive for a joke. The whole reason it included bf was because they analyzed the pg film, and said it showed no sign of fabrication.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 There you go again. Tunnel vision, blinkers on. Selective learning. The report on the atlas clearly states that Bigfoot is a myth and should be regarded as such. The atlas wasn't all about bigfoot. Just a light-hearted pun about a myth.
Some people have said; why is it just walking causally away, why doesn’t it run? Wild animals don’t always break into a run. It’s a sure way to be chased if they do, they know this. I’ve seen bear that amble away until they think they’re out of sight and then they run. Seen it twice with bears, and it makes sense not to illicit a predatory chase response from what is following you, even though I’m certain I wouldn’t chase them but they don’t know that.
Have any of you seen the whole FILM??? The original film is much longer, she keeps walking & upon entering the downed tree area she turns left & goes down on a fours up & over the downed tree. When she does this her rear end is completely exposed & the female anatomy is completely visible!!! Yes I said that because I have seen the whole video & the video I saw is very clear & very colorful! The video film shown now is many many many recordings old & has degraded the film we see today! The film we see today only has Patty walking to the trees… Video ends… When I saw this her turning left & going over downed tree on four legs the female anatomy was exposed I knew she was real, I believe that’s why it’s hidden & not shown!!!
Smooth flowing gait on a 6 foot 10 inch being weighing over 700 lbs and a non human 73 degree shin rise angle. All done with ease on that terrain. Patty is real.
I was blessed to have seen a first generation print of this film and the actual foot casts. The footcasts have toe print ridges on the toes. Impossible to fake in 1967.
Toe print ridges? In soft soil or sand?
LOL
True believers will say anything. This is total nonsense. Patty's feet would have been callused after walking on them for years on various types of terrain. When a callus forms, it increases the overall thickness of the epidermis in that area. As calluses develop, they obscure or flatten these ridges due to the additional layers of keratinized cells accumulating on top which results in it being extremely difficult to create dermal ridge impressions. And her feet would have been dirty after walking around for however long since she was last in a river. At least the duration of the Patty film. Her dirty callused feet would not have left dermal ridges in sand or loose soil.
The first notable instances of dermal ridges appearing in Bigfoot casts can be traced back to the casts made by U.S. Forest Service personnel in June 1982 in southeastern Washington State. Some hoaxer decided to make his casts more real and more easily found by others.
Same for the "crippled bigfoot" casts. Again, a hoaxer tried to make his casts more real.
@ glad to see you refer to the Bigfoot as female. If you truly believed it was a hoax you would not make that distinction. And the soil the casts were taken from was damp and took the impression well.
@@darlenesmith5690the ones with the ridges came from damp soil with clay.
@@leewm.gaudry3770 Where is the evidence for this? This sounds like pure speculation.
The Patty film supposedly happened in the afternoon. Where is an interview within a month of it happening where Robert or Bob claimed that there was damp soil with clay there? Not a single interview states that it was raining that morning or that week. Dew would be gone in a matter of a few hours in the morning "on a bright sunny day".
And why are the Patty footprint casts "flatfooted"? No movement at all in the impression.
Claims 57 years later are all nice and well, but nobody is going to believe them without solid evidence. People's memories from 5+ decades ago are even worse then recent eyewitness testimony. Unless it was documented, any rational person has to think that it was made up out of whole cloth or being misremembered.
On the other hand, I would have no doubts that a hoaxer would, months or years later, sculpt into the plaster "some ridges" if they thought it would make them more realistic. Create the ridges, rub a little similarly colored dirt on them to make it appear original, and voila. Fake ridges.
This is similar to people claiming that Patty was over 7 feet tall and weighed over 600 pounds. The evidence is not there.
Most estimates put her at 6' 3" to 6' 5" like the following:
thedavisreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/mcclarin-multiwalk-comparison-animation.gif
This would put her at about 400 pounds max.
But then we get a discrepancy. Bob Gimlin claimed that Patty's prints were deeper than his horse hoof prints. Except that 4 horse hooves have less surface area than 2 Patty feet. This means that Patty had to be heavier than Bob and his horse combined. That sized horse weighs 900 to 1,400 pounds and let's say that Bob was 150, not counting saddle and gear. That means that Patty had to weigh more than 1,050 pounds.
At even 6' 5", there is no way that she is more than 1,000 pounds.
And it's these types of discrepancies that illustrate the Patty is almost definitely a hoax (there are a few dozen more such discrepancies). The issue is that when a story is made up, there will always be holes in it.
Believing in bigfoot is fine, but ignoring the evidence against the Patty film is disingenuous. True believers do themselves a big disservice when they do not call out the BS as BS.
@@darlenesmith5690 as a man who gets very callous I get where you’re coming from, but have you ever touched the hands and feet of a wild monkey? They spend all day every day climbing and their hands remain soft and smooth. The softest I’ve ever touched. Some critters are just built different.
In July 2023 I was camping in Kananaskis Country, in the middle of nowhere. At around 3-am a biped was walking around my tent. There were dried pine needles everywhere. It was the crushing under foot that I and my dog heard. Her movement awoke me. I scrambled around for the bear spray and whatever was outside the tent must of heard me as it stopped moving. By now I was fully awake. I distinctly heard the person or creature walk on two legs and leave the location. I compared this to a moose that walked by my tent,the breathing and gait were completely different.
Beautiful area!! I've camped there countless time!!
I've never seen anything out there myself but I want to. 😊
I have camped in Kananaskis country many times. Just last month I was on a hike around Wasootch. We did not see anyone on the trail. That’s how isolated the area is. Yes. A highway cuts through it but literally 100 feet off the highway is pure bush, much of it never stepped in by a human. My point is that I also heard Moose and elk and even Caribou walk around my tent (verified by hoof prints the next day) and I believe you when you say that a biped sounds completely different than an angulate as they loco-mote next to you.
Im calling bs
@@daleburton3591 Cool fake story bro.👎🏼
Must of? I think it is must have, Einstein.
I, at now 84, so do remember when this all happened....and, had my own experience in 1980 at the totally deserted Trinity Lake in northern CA. The reason I recall the date so well is because the day prior, I had celebrated my 40th birthday. I certainly thought this phenomena would have been concluded long before now, but here it is over 40 years later still with both believers and nonbelievers.
@blackholeentry3489 All the non believers need to become a believer then it's evidence?
@@WillRobinson-r7c As a lifetime astronomer and chemist, I've always followed the evidence...Theories MUST be supported by evidence, and when/if the evidence changes, my beliefs change right along with it. Doesn't mean I'm 100% right...just what the evidence supports at that moment.
Same things applies to UFOs....(My primary interest) of which I've had four 'Up close and in my face' sightings/experiences...going all the way back to the late 60's. BHE
@@WillRobinson-r7cwhich you repeatedly ignore or try to explain away. Like a female suit for a guy to wear.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Are you serious? You think it was technologically impossible to sew boobs on an ape suit? 😝
@@RockwellRhodes no, it just wouldn't be done. The supposed suit has muscle impossible for a suit to show. She's real.
I believe the footage is real. I thought stuff like bigfoot was made up when i was a kid, but when i was 13 i saw a black panther in the woods. This is in England, where a unidentified large black cat is a cryptid. After that experience (it was 20 feet away) i became fascinated with cryptozoology
The really scary part is if we'll find proof in our lifetime. There have been bodies found of mythical creatures from over 200 years ago. And that's if it's real. But if mythical creatures have been proven real before then why not this?
Big cats are real animals,bigfoot is bullshit
I've not seen any "cryptoids", but I've been stalked 3 times by something large & heavy.
Twice in woods (near Faversham & Littlebourne Kent) & once when very young on a picnic.
Hi. This creature is fluid, stable and it's feet are flexing due to great weight. I've studied this film film for years, it's too good for 1967.🤗
Absolutely correct.
😂😂😂ok
@@cabininthewoods517my god you are such gullible people 🙄
What about the watch?
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
I remember in a TV show about this film an interesting fact. The creature in the film, much like almost all early hominids has no neck, and cannot look over its shoulders the way a human can. It must turn it's body partially in order to see anything passed 45 degrees from center.
As someone else pointed out, the rippling shockwave of the muscles in the leg and she stamps her foot down is the most compelling part of this footage. It is undeniably real just based on that.
Agreed!
This effect can be achieved easily (from a distance) by using spirit gum to attach fake fur to an actual bare leg covered in dark body paint. It looks bad in person, but 25 yds away on blurry footage it looks great. (Even the remastered footage is blurry compared to "live and in person".)
@@leomdk939you honestly think Patterson knew about that?
This is gold. Is bigfoot real or fake? Has there ever been skeletal remains found? No! Have any fossils been found? No! Is there an evolutionary link to any primate? No! Has there been any DNA found as in a hair, tooth, scat, saliva on food etc No! Is there any trail cam footage? No! With absolutely NO evidence of bigfoots existence EVER Science says it's a hoax. Therefore the film is fake. Why can I see muscle and definition then? Because you're watching a remastered film. The 1967 film is a man in a suit. The movement of bigfoot in the film is well within the human range. What about the distance between steps? We have to believe the hoaxers word on that. Humans are the only primate NOT to have a hallux or divergent big toe. The hallux evolved for holding, grabbing and climbing. Human feet evolved for walking long distances and running. If human feet don't wear shoes their toes spread. The casts of Patty's feet look like she's been wearing shoes with her toes not spread and neatly aligned. The original casts were just enlarged human feet. Science and evolution says the casts are fake. Bigfoot must live in the paranormal world because there's no evidence she lives in this world.
Lies. No "rippling shockwave" or ANY muscle movement has been seen in any frame of this film. It's clearly fake. And you'd do well to do your research on Roger Patterson. He was a liar and a thief.
This video is what 60 years old an with all the advancements in technology it's done nothing but reveal more details that weren't possible at the time ...60 years this video deserves its credit .
It looks bad and you should be ashamed for believing it's real.
@thegigglystinkfinger8515 The 1967 film looked like a guy in a costume. This remastered film however looks like bigfoot.
Honestly, every time it gets remastered the better it looks.
It's definitely real.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Prove it.
@@WillRobinson-r7c I think each enhancement makes it more obvious that it's a bad hoax. Just look at the face for instance. So fake looking.
Lets address Roger getting "Lucky".
Some people complain that there is no way that Patterson just took a movie camera and went out and found Bigfoot, and that in itself makes the film fake. But this film was no overnight success. It took Patterson nearly 6 years of searching to see a Bigfoot, and he was out looking for them. Patterson lived in a Bigfoot hotspot. Why would he drive across 2 states to fake a Bigfoot film that he could have faked in his backyard?
It’s because Patterson knew where to look. Bluff Creek had hundreds of Bigfoot tracks along it for 9 years before Patty got her picture taken. And Roger had taken a photograph of a track cast that was “17 inches long and 7 1/2 inches across the ball” in that vicinity on October 21, 1964. This time Roger went to Bluff Creek to film recent tracks left by a family of 3. Before he filmed Patty they had been riding the creek for weeks. He used all of that film roll filming their ride, except for the last 59 seconds. So we are lucky we even have that.
Exactly. Most skeptics don't consider the hard work Patterson did getting there and taking the film. Ooh, it's fake, blah blah blah.
Not doubting the authenticity. I question why, with the advanced technology we now have, that videos like this aren’t common? These things live out in the woods or in the mountains right? It’s not like they had a big meeting, every Sasquatch together in the 80s or 90s about taking extra care to avoid being filmed or photographed (like they would even know what that was!) If they are still out there in the large numbers which many people suggest then why and how are each and every one of them avoiding being captured on film? and why would they want to be?
@@colincgc True.......
@@colincgc doubt it's large numbers. Maybe a few family groups in each state.
@@colincgcnot many people suggest that there are large numbers of them though, Dr. Krantz and Meldrum said that they are extremely rare and for every Sasquatch there are probably several hundred bears.
Whether you find that answer to be too much of a "plot convenience" or not, its definitely possible as we have seen with other rare or previously thought to be extinct species. Even though we have trail cams and stuff how often do you think people hike dozens of miles into dense wilderness to set them up?
The fact that all the scientists backing this film being real are not big foot researchers means this film isn't fake
The one argument against this films authenticity that just drives me insane goes something like this. "You know its fake". How do you know it's fake?, "Because bigfoot isn't real, so it has to be fake." I don't know if the film is authentic or not, but if you are going to opine about it, please do a little research. I have, for years, and I have not found any credible evidence that debunks it. And don't come at me with Bob Hieronimus, his story changed every time he told it. if anyone has a credible source for a credible debunking I'll happily check it out.
It is fake because it is a guy in a suit.
@@Diviance Exactly
The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists, not on others to debunk a 60 year old video.
Hoaxes were vastly complex in old times, more than you can imagine. Look up The Mechanical Turk made in 1770. People back then were very, very smart.
@@gordonduke8812why has this "suit" have female breasts?
It's real for sure. No one would make a female bf suit.
A short history list I compiled of the Bluff Creek tracks:
August 1958. Road builders Ray Wallace and Jerry Crew find 16-inch BF tracks all around a parked Caterpillar Tractor 20 miles south of Bluff Creek. The tracks reappear a month later and plaster casts are taken. Weekly thereafter, Jerry sees Bigfoot tracks going from Northwest to Southeast on the same logging road. Ray Wallace finds human-like droppings the size of those a 1200 pound horse would make. Wilbur Wallace, Ray's brother, finds a full 55 gallon oil drum carried to the edge of the road and thrown down the hill. He also finds a 20 foot length of 18" culvert carried some distance away and a 700 pound tire & wheel for a "carry all" which had been rolled for a quarter mile and hurled into a ravine.
Fall, 1958. Editor Andrew Genzoli and the senior staff photographer of the Times-Standard see Bigfoot tracks and droppings of monumental proportions like those of a "2 ton bear with chronic constipation."
September, 1958. Bigfoot tracks are seen 4 different times on Bluff Creek Road.
October 1, 1958. Jerry Crew finds a quarter mile of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and makes casts.
October 12, 1958. Ray Kerr and Leslie Breazeale see a BF cross a 20' road in 2 strides and find tracks several miles south of where they are usually seen on Bluff Creek Road. Hired by Ray Wallace to track BF, they redouble their hunting effort but their dogs disappear a few days later and are never seen again.
Mid October, 1958. BF tracks are seen again near Bluff Creek.
October 23, 1958. BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road once again.
October 28, 1958. 2 miles of 16" BF tracks are seen on Bluff Creek Road.
October 30, 1958. BF tracks are seen going down a hill from Bluff Creek Road.
November 2, 1958. Bob Titmus and Ed Patrick find BF tracks on a Bluff Creek Sandbar.
December 18. 1958. Betty Allen finds 6 miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road, expressed fear in her articles.
1959. A husband and wife flying a private plane over Bluff Creek see and follow BF tracks until they pass over the BF making them.
August 16, 1959. Bob Titmus finds 300 yards of BF tracks along Bluff Creek Sandbar.
August 30, 1959. Bob Titmus finds more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar.
November 1, 1959. Bob Titmus finds even more BF tracks at Bluff Creek Sandbar, discovery was 8 years before Patterson filmed the BF in roughly the same location.
November 2, 1959. Betty Allen finds BF tracks coming down a canyon and along Bluff Creek.
January 30, 1960. Betty Allen finds BF tracks around a shovel loader on Humboldt Fir logging road at Bluff Creek.
June 19, 1960. Dr. Charles Johnson and his family find BF tracks on both sides of the Klamath River a half mile west of Bluff Creek.
Handy info there
@spiritualarchitect4276 Wow, There's alot of she said he said non evidence there. Footprints aren't evidence. If you look at the Footprint casts RP made they're just enlarged human feet. ALL primates on the planet have a hallux or divergent big toe EXCEPT for humans. Human feet evolved for walking long distances, sprinting, running and lost the need for a hallux. ALL other primates use a divergent big toe for gripping. holding and climbing. When humans don't wear shoes their toes spread. Tribes people of New Guinea have feet that resemble primates. Pattys toes are aligned just like human feet with no divergent big toe. And copied from a shoe wearing person. The hoaxers and cast makers really had no idea back then. Without any fossil evidence of BF, there's no evolutionary link to anything. That means BF doesn't exist. There are many hundreds of thousands human fossilised bones dating back millions of years but not one fragment of BF. Without any evidence, it proves to be a hoax. By the look of this list, there's alot of tricksters out there and alot of suckers here.
that's a good chronology, but you should check out a comparison of the Crew tracks vs. a known Wallace 'stomper'. There's a side by side comparison pic at a site you can find at the Paranormal World Wiki site. Even though the guy was trying to show they were *not* the same, just a cursory look shows they are. Strip off the excess material around the edges of the Crew tracks, and it *is* the Wallace stomper. Same size, shape, indentations. And can one really believe Bigfoot was actively hanging out at a construction site filled with heavy equipment?
@jamesrav Well done. Thanks for the info. 👍
@@jamesravexcept the Wallace's couldn't recreate those foot tracks. "Stompers" aren't going to go deeper than your own tracks, they go less deep. The wooden feet don't work, and never made those tracks.
Maybe one day Bigfoot will hold a press conference and settle all of this for us.
Until then, and in lieu of more concrete and comprehensive evidence, I remain open minded yet unconvinced.
Really rooting for that press conference though. It would be spectacular television.
he'll probably need a translator for the conference
And a signer for the deaf@@TheBennie102103
@@michaeloeser9187 sadly, in America, it’s more likely the first indisputable evidence will be a carcass draped over the fender of an F-250.
@@TheBennie102103 If he ever un-blurs himself. 😆
@@RockwellRhodes 😅
I experienced an encounter back in 1998 while driving home. In a area of low land on the Meremac River. There was an area that backed to the woods. I was driving around 10mph and spotted it about a 100 yards away and it started to run at me, I accelerated and it ran directly behind my car and ran into the woods across the road. The next day I was discussing this with a buddy of mine I worked with. He was behind me and saw it as well. It smelled like a skunk, the next day I stopped where it happened. For a wooded area there was no sound and smelled heavy of skunky wet fur. Within a week several spotting occurred in the same area.
I think it was my mother in law.
@@Scott-up3bq If so, she needs a bath 🛁
@@Scott-up3bq LOL
Thank you...finally someone that understands what only a few of us do. So many have dismissed the film as fake...yet they cannot see what we see. In my opinion, people that were born and raised in the country...near woods, walked in woods themselves...can see and understand what they are looking at, that the film as authentic...I found people that lived in the towns and big cities always thought it was a fake. I've always known this film was real when i first saw it in 1971 when i was a 8 year old boy...reasoning, We didn't make costumes with "breasts", wide hips...costumes for female anatomy were not done in the 1960's...plus she has "no neck"...her head turns with her shoulders turning (much like apes). I still concur with my 8 year old self at 62.
@@LarsonFamilyFarm-LLC can U get TH-cam?"Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot HoaxRevealed 2005"will educate you if you got the BALLS to learn the truth and reverse yr thinking....but you won't watch ,don't want to learn the truth so poor dumb you.
So many have claimed the video is real... but they can't see what we see. How blatantly fake it is.
@@Diviancethe older generation knows better than you. Costumes from the 60s wouldn't show breasts and a butt crack.
You see nothing but your own biases. Patterson making a female suit is absurd.
No he wasn't.
I can accept that Patterson got lucky- what's odd is that no-one has got anywhere near being as lucky in the intervening 57 years.....
I can understand the skepticism about Patterson’s luck, but there's strong evidence to suggest that if better footage or encounters have occurred, they may have been hidden from public view. Former police officer David Paulides says “In all my years in law enforcement, I came across enough evidence to know Bigfoot was real, yet I was told directly by superiors to leave it alone, keep it quiet. These are things the public isn’t supposed to know.”
Retired park ranger Greg Walter shared a similar experience, stating that staff were told to redirect conversations away from Bigfoot and that reports were often 'filed away' without follow-up. This kind of suppression isn’t unique; former law enforcement officer John Green has noted that government agencies frequently shut down discussions about Bigfoot, even from credible witnesses. Paulides has described the lack of transparency from government bodies as a 'serious question of accountability.'
Given these testimonies, it’s reasonable to consider that if other compelling evidence exists, it could be out of public reach by design. So the apparent lack of footage might not just be a question of luck but of access.
@@cabininthewoods517 LOL conspiracy; what else do you swallow? Contrails, flat earth, QAnon, World Trade Towers and so on ....
@@cabininthewoods517 And exactly why are governments in all the countries with bf sightings suppressing the truth?
Lots of people have gotten lucky and seen these beings since then, problem is we're not dealing with animals here they're something else entirely...
Patterson was a bf hunter and was prepared. Hard work, grit, and determination got it done the American way! I 🇺🇲
I’ve watched the P-G film over 100 times and find it utterly perplexing.
Perplexing in what way?
I've watched it over 500 times (since 1972) and I find it very compelling.
I knew from the moment I saw the film as a kid that it is definitely a guy in a suit. Not a real creature. In fact, the whole legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
Compelling how people actually believe it's real.🤦🏻♂️
So that's you in that gorilla suit.@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824
I was focusing on how the flesh of the leg flexes and bounces as the foot hit the ground with some force right at the moment the creature turns to look back, and it looks like a real flesh and blood animal would look with such movement. This is a real creature.
I'm very much a skeptic, and will remain so until either a live one is found or remains are discovered. Obviously, there would have to be more than one to propagate the species. Could I be wrong? of course, but I could also be right. That's what makes this a fun area for discussion.
I have zero issues with this perspective. 🙂
To have a type specimen would be the gold standard - that would likely mean killing one and people are very divided about that.
@@mirrorblue100 Agreed, but maybe it would be possible to find remains if these things actually existed.
@@yukon065 Yes - its certainly a puzzle to me that - so far as I know - no one has credibly stumbled on remains. I was thinking about this in regards to Hurricane Helene - that maybe a BF drowned in the floods and a body recovered.
I'm sure we will but will it be in our lifetime? I remember seeing on the news a report about a man finding a dead fish and told the lifeguard. The lifeguard went to clean up but before doing anything he noticed the fish. It turned out it was a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. If the Internet can help find that story I'd appreciate it because I was just a kid at the time. But man think about it. Imagine seeing a creature of unknown origin and people don't believe you in your lifetime but it did exist.
If this was a fake, they deserve an Oscar. The greatest thing about this movie is that no one, up until this day, we’re able to replicate it with the same quality. Not even with today’s practical effects tech.
Very true, we saw the state of the art in '68 with the Planet of the Apes movies and they're laughable looking compared to Patty. Even now they couldn't do a Patty due to human anatomy preventing it, we're built the opposite of the great apes with our long leg and small torso vs. their short legs and long torso - which is how Patty's built. Not that they're apes, the built is similar.
It was also filmed so badly that it defies the point of a convincing hoax, like, if the suit was so mind-blowing, why would they film it like the Cameraman was having an Epileptic fit???
Had to add that the hernia above the right hand knee is far beyond anything we could do
You idiots it's a man in a suit
Because it looks back
You'll want to belive so much you repeat each other
You start saying PATTY like you know it's either a female or male
YOU KNOW
Think how silly it is to know that
Plus find me a dead one
Go on find me a corpse
A rotting stinking corpse ?
NO....
Thought not
Fools
@@LarryFleetwood8675 There's only one primate that leaves a human footprint. It's not BF.
@Uncanny_Mountain You're right. The film was so great it had to be enhanced Gen2, Gen3, remastered CGI. None of that fine detail was there in 1967. The original film looked like a man in a suit. The original hoax just keeps getting better.
To me there is no debate to be had! We here in the UK have large cats in the countryside and our government will not acknowledge their existence. In our case it is a matter of laziness. I hope it is for the right reasons that Sasquatch isn't given species recognition in the States. These magnificent creatures should be given full protection species!
Disney said they don't have suits that convincing. The thing is real. Can see it. The hair at back of the head looks tied or braided.
Gorillas In The Mist was made nearly 20 years later. Both the SFX crew that made the gorilla suits for that & the performers inside them said that if that was a suit in the Patterson footage, then it was still far in advance of the tech even all those years down the line.
Those guys were honest cowboys who wanted to show a species that has not been acknowledged as of yet. It is absolutely real .
@@BBBaer-me Patterson was a con artist and definitely not honest.
@@BBBaer-me no it's not..
Proof it's fake in the link ...
@@rayoleary7581all believing the heironimus story, which is the biggest con job ever. Guy didn't know Patty was female!😂
@robertcoggeshall3071 ok champ
Absolutely correct luv
I absolutely respect the way you have conclusively gone about presenting your evidence. And, I have to agree with you - this could not have been anything but a genuine and as yet unclassified creature. Great video. Look forward to seeing more from you. And best wishes from New Zealand.
The most compelling film of any cryptid, ever. Certainly, the most compelling of any primate cryptid.
I don't understand why people think this is somehow impossible. As if there aren't many types and sizes of monkeys, apes, chimps, baboons etc. all over the world. Especially with different Indian tribes having old oral traditions of them. Even modern Indians seeing them, as my old friend told me about many years ago. They also have oral traditions of mammoth hunting that the same sceptics said was impossible. And lo and behold....
One thing I could never understand is why did they change their story so many times.
They never changed it much. Maybe forgetting small details.
shut up , Robert
Yeah, whatever, Laura, Peter, Icecycles, PNHassett, and Andre, lol 😆 Robertcoggeshall man, the dork Knight, and his sidekick bots.
Robertcoggeshall never got MARRIED. 😂 BASEMENT DWELLER 😂
Good video... especially for folks new to the subject...I'm 1000% sure on Sasquatch and other cryptids...but there is still a little bit of doubt on Patty...the no butt crack...and the hands/fingers look a little weird...
I think the number one positive for it is she doesn't stumble...or change the gait...or trip a little....she walks so smooth and easy on probably cobble and tree limbs... uneven ground... etc..she's almost laser straight...I think a person in a suit would be falling and tripping and stumbling over thier feet...
Great comment!
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
@@flatsquatch and a non human shin rise angle. She is real.
I'm 99.9% sure the footage is real and have been for a long time. Met Bob Gimlin..seemed like a totally straight shooter! The one thing that I can't deny to myself was the Bob Heironimus thing..his gait is distinct and highly similar! Hmmm
@@northerndelights3113 Yes. Bob H does have the same posture, gait and body ratio as "Patty", despite what a couple TH-camrs have claimed. But what's more telling, imo, is Roger Patterson's past leading up to the filming. For one, he stole the movie camera used in the filming and he mysteriously "lost" the original film reel when asked if forensic analysis could be performed on the film. Also, Patterson claimed to have been working on a "full length Bigfoot movie" not long before the "Patty" film. This gave him the motive to buy a Bigfoot costume. The fact that Patterson had sketches of female Bigfoot in his first published book, which came out well before the PG film is another weird coincidence. And probably worst of all, Patterson personally knew Ray L Wallace, the man who hoaxed the first ever "Bigfoot footprints" in 1958 Humboldt County. Hmmm... And another oddity is that before Wallace faked those prints, there were literally zero "Bigfoot tracks" ever found. I hate to say it but I think there's a better chance of P Diddy being innocent than there is of Bigfoot"s existence at this point. There is no verifiable proof of such a creature.
You pointed out the arm length, hands down to the knees, what you didn't point out is the arms bend in the middle (which is IMPOSSIBLE for a human) a suit would have a shorter upper arms and an extremely long forearm "not bend in the middle", all while there is finger movement(totally impossible in 1967). {Remember this was 10 - 15 years before the first Radio Shack TRS 80 home computer came out} PLUS we all saw how jumpy the film was because Patterson was running and it still outdistanced a running man just by walking! shows us just how huge it really was if you pay attention to details.
Arms do bend in the middle... it's called an elbow. And it's a pretty good suit, but, that's all it is... a suit... with a big mofo inside it. case closed. You can go back to living, now.
@Hutzjohn The guy in the suit doesn't stand up straight. He's hunched over a little making the arms appear longer. They are not outside the normal human range. Your right about the finger movement being impossible for 1967 as the 1967 film doesn't show it. It's not there. The remastered video does. The 1967 film was clearly a man in a suit. The marvels of CGI and AI have bought this video to life.
Elbows don’t exist according to this utter moron
@@WillRobinson-r7c 🤣🤣🤣🤣NEXT you're gonna tell us God isn't real, or kamala should have won ---- but hey you're entitled to your opinion ---- the 1967 film is clearly NOT a man in a suit
@Hutzjohn What is it then? Before you press send, go to the mirror, look yourself in the eye and say it out loud.
July 1964. Scout Master Joe Christensen Sr., and Boy Scout Camp medic Dick Beathel found (a mile from the camp) 17 inch by 7 1/2 inch bare footprints in the mud and cast them. The stride was around five feet between imprints; five toes. Photo of casts were published in the Modesto Bee on July 16, 1964. The location was 7 miles northeast of Mariposa, Mariposa County, California
Summer 1964. Dave Blake often finds BF tracks at Laid Meadow at Blake and Tregoning Logging operation west of Bluff Creek. A culvert 4 feet in diameter and 20 feet long is thrown into the canyon and 450 pound barrels of diesel fuel are moved around.
August 21, 1964. Roger Patterson finds and casts 17 inch tracks with a 52 inch stride on Laird Meadow Road.
September, 1964. Samuel Brewer Jr. finds and casts a 15½ inch BF tracks with a 47 inch stride along Bluff Creek.
Fall, 1964. Dave Blake sees BF tracks around his logging equipment every morning for a week. A trailer load of 18 inch culverts is overturned while men are working nearby.
1965. Jay Rowland finds BF tracks along Bluff Creek a short distance from Notice Creek.
1965 On Notice Creek near where it runs into Bluff Creek, Indian road grader operator Dewey Haupe hears distant night whistles while bear hunting with Titmus, one whistle would cause a return whistle from opposite direction. Titmus tells Haupe it's BF.
July, 1965. Steve Sanders and 2 others sleeping in a tent awake to see a large finger or stick opening their tent flap. Their yells scare it off. Investigating the next day, they find BF tracks 17 inches long and 7 inches wide around their tent at Blue Lake near Bluff Creek.
September, 1965. Mark Karr said he drove his vehicle into a tree to avoid hitting a Bigfoot that was in the road.
1966. Jason Edwards parents told him that they saw a family of 4 BF while hunting bear in the Bluff Creek area. Two adults and a medium size and smaller one. 1966. Richard Sides sees a BF squatting at Bluff Creek drinking water with cupped hands.
1966. A logging truck driver who didn't want his name used because of his employment claimed he was knocked down after running smack into the chest of a Bigfoot on the front portch of his cabin. His friend, Bud Jensen supported his story and described an eleven-inch handprint that was also found on the porch door.
Fall, 1966. Jay Roland sees BF tracks on a road a Scorpion Creek in the Bluff Creek area.
October 25, 1966. Dan Mullens finds BF tracks and an unopened case of oil cans crushed on Notice Creek near Bluff Creek.
Bluff Creek tracks continued:
1962 - Enis Schofield described how his fencing was torn down fencepost by fencepost the week after it was erected nearby the Bluff Creek Resort. Each post was pulled up out of its concrete piling in the ground which Schofield said required unheard of strength and was probably done because it blocked a pathway the Big Feet people used to reach the creek every night. Pointing toward the hillside, he told Betty Allen, "They come down the hill there, you can see their tracks and they seem to go down to the creek to drink or maybe to go up it, because no tracks come back up the hill. They come out somewheres else," he told Allen. Schofield told the reporter they didn't feel safe barbequeing outdoors anymore and were contemplating selling their cabin to Saunders boys, owners of the Resort on the main road.
August 19, 1962. Skip Clark finds and casts Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek sandbar.
September 26, 1962. Bob Titmus finds miles of BF tracks on Bluff Creek Road and in the creek bottom itself.
1963. Thomas Sourwine says a 300 pound boulder was used to repeatedly smash road building equipment parked at the time near Bluff Creek upper road.
1963. Pat Graves follows BF tracks for 5 miles from Laird Meadow to Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek. Sticks 1¼ in thick are found broken in the tracks.
1963. Dave Blake finds BF tracks where a barrel of diesel fuel was thrown off the road.
1963. BF tracks 15 inches long are found at Bluff Creek logging operations, with boxes of spikes thrown around and sticks of dynamite bitten into.
June 13, 1963. BF tracks 16 inches long are found crossing Notice Creek near Bluff Creek only 100 feet away from where 3 men were sleeping in a car.
June 30, 1963. BF tracks 10 to 15 inches long are found and cast in the Bluff Creek area.
August, 1963. BF tracks are found on Bluff Creek Road at Notice Creek bridge.
October 1963. Al Hodgson finds a set of BF tracks a few hundred yards above the Notice Creek bridge at Bluff Creek sandbar. The sandbar was washed away in the 1964 flood.
Now that was a comment worth reading 👏👏❤️🇬🇧
@@cookiemonster2299 Why? It's all hear-say!
@@RockwellRhodesno, its documented.
@@RockwellRhodes you are hearsay too
@@spiritualarchitect4276 Robert is a sad individual
Awesome video, and I agree on all point. As far as the biomechanics of the walking pattern goes, it would make no sense to fake it. For what purpose? I've tried to do the Patterson Bigfoot walk and could only do about two steps, and that's while hanging onto a table ledge. Also, and this is my original theory, if the film was faked, then there would have been THREE people ( Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and the 'man in the Bigfoot suit', as well as three horses, not two ) out in the Bluff Creek area filming and riding around on horses, not two people. All those days out in the woods and not a single person; hiker, camper, hunter, worker etc... ever claimed to have seen Patterson with two other people, because doing so would have sunk the Patterson Bigfoot film like a torpedo. After all these years no one has ever claimed, and that would be a very big claim, to have seen three people.
Common sense means nothing to the skeptics and all the hearsay "confessions" about either a suit or Patterson.
Or the makeup team helping Bob h into his costume, lol.
I just noticed how the hand swings back on the wrist as the arm goes from backwards to forward. It looks very natural.
7. Why would anyone go through the trouble of making a suit so realistic that it could fool a Hollywood makeup artist if they were only going to use it once in an unstable, one-minute-long video?
Where did it go? Why was the film only 1 minute long?
Patterson ran out of film at that point.
Just as she turns it's the shockwave travelling up her leg as she plants her right leg on the ground that did it for me. A huge WOW moment for me. This thing is REAL!
Agree 100%
Gullible rubes.🤦🏻♂️
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824yes, the skeptics certainly are...
Found the fed
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Says the rube who worships Roger Scammerson.
Where are the remains of one?
No idea. With 300 million acres of untouched wilderness in North America alone, there are many possible places.
Have you ever heard of anyone finding a dead Canadian lynx in the woods?
Animals decompose remarkably fast and it is surprising the number of different mammals, including presumably 100% herbivores, that will eat bones for the calcium contained therein, including ungulates. Do a search here on TH-cam and you can find a deer eating a human rib bone at a forensics body farm run by the Tennessee Department of Justice.
Sasquatch tend to live in family groups, and it is quite possible they may bury their dead. In South Africa a somewhat similar hominin, Homo Naledi, buried their dead more than 300,000 years ago.
@@user-mw3mb2uv8n inter dimensional beings.
@@cabininthewoods517 I believe the film is real, but I also believe Bigfoot to be supernatural beings created by fallen angels. That might explain why they don't find a dead specimen.
@cabininthewoods517 Horseshit. There are tens of thousands of trail cameras and not a single clear image has been reported.
ANSWER ME THIS: Why did it take TWO men to shoot this footage? And why, if the subject and nature of the film, was so earth-shattering and of such ultimate consequence, did the camera operator NOT follow the "creature" along for more footage, instead of just 53 seconds at 18FPS or 59 seconds at 16 FPS? Why just let it walk away?
Aren't big foot known for being remarkably elusive and will notice you long before you notice it and try to remain visually hidden?
Makes you wonder why this particular big foot had a couldn't care less attitude about being spotted and made no effort to get out of view once it looked over and noticed them.
True but after Robert Morgan and Nino Cochise analyzed the film way back they summized Patty is doing the mother bird thing by drawing the hunters away from her young and by the way to all the knucklehead critics non-believers and trolls here you defeat your purpose by simply being here you express a secret underlying interest in the topic also FYI Patty is not the only Bigfoot in the film but it matters not they do exist get over it you'll be ok
Patterson was lucky and caught her on film before she got to cover.
That's you, trying to explain it away.
Robertcoggeshall never got MARRIED. 😂 BASEMENT DWELLER 😂
Robertcoggeshall is a certified spammer.
I've always believed this was 100% authentic
Very good analysis, I have the original Argosy Magazine with this Bigfoot article!
Does your Argosy mag have a BLUE cover?
@@spiritualarchitect4276 Nope, it has the film photos on it...
@@stevendphoto But is the BORDER BLUE or RED? I remember vividly seeing that mag when it came out (1968?) at my uncles house. And I remember it being BLUE. Yet when I see the cover online it is RED. This makes no sense to me as my favorite color is RED. How could I have confused this memory?
Dr Igor Buertsev and Dmitri Bayanov, more Russian scientists, also have backed the P/G film as legitimate
Who tf are they?🤣
2 Russian scientists who analyzed the pg film in the 90s, and had a book called Bigfoot- US evidence verified in Russia.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824 How embarrassing for you...
@@worldbigfootcentral3933 Let's trust two Russian scientists who no one has ever heard of...🤦🏻♂️
@@robertcoggeshall3071 But yet no Bigfoot evidence has ever been verified. Their book's title is an Oxymoron. Lol.
I wish we could know for sure. This has kept my mind open and searching for over 4 decades. I believe.
The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
We may not find a body until after we're gone. I saw on the news once about some man finding a dead fish on the beach. The man told the lifeguard so they can clean it up. But the lifeguard recognized the fish. It turned out to be a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. Imagine finding a creature of unknown origin once but not again in your lifetime until after so long.
@comicrandomness3289 Nobody's ever going to find a body of Fakefoot.
Honestly, I am on the fence with it. It does look like a real animal in the film because if you look at the legs and knees you can see the ligaments tightening and relaxing and they are in exactly the right position and doing exactly the right thing and move as if you are seeing muscle rippling under skin under hair. There are spots on it where the hair looks less dense and you can see the shine on the skin surface. For instance around 1:11 where it's leg muscles are tensed and you can see muscle definition. They wouldn't had been able to replicate that and we have to use CGI now to do that. It appears to be female and ruffly something between a silver back gorilla and a human. While it makes that awkward face and walks off. You also see it's rather large scapula (shoulder blades) moving in it's back.
Let’s address 3 typical skeptic topics
How did Patterson film a Bigfoot when no one else could?
Why did the Bigfoot not run away before hand?
How come the Bigfoot did not run away afterwards?
The answer is Horses.
When Patterson and Gimlin rode along the creek there was a large tree lying beside it. The root system of that tree was “as large as a house”. It was not until Roger rode around the roots that he spotted the Bigfoot squatting down by the creek water. His horse spotted it at the same time and reared up. This happened in the first few seconds before Bob Gimlin even saw the creature, which by then was standing up looking at them. It instantly climbed the bank and started walking off.
Because the smell of the 3 horses overpowered the humans scent, Patty heard and smelled the horses, but not the men.
Patty may have known what horses were. She certainly would not be afraid of them. Patty and her kind were king of the forest, and as such would be afraid of no one. Patty may of never smelled horses before. Or she may have seen and smelled horses before, but maybe they were wild horses?
If so, they would not have been wearing horseshoes and thus would sound different to her, she being a creature who would be well aware of all the sounds of the forest.
Either way, in her curiosity she waited for the horses to come into view, and suddenly seeing humans on them, she started to leave the scene, walking away from them. According to her footprints, the farther away she walked, the wider her stride became, and the faster she walked.
Once again, she would not be afraid of the men, as much as they were a nuisance to her and her kind. Roger did say that she looked back at him BEFORE he even started filming, and that she gave him a aggravated look like an unhappy baseball umpire would.
Fascinating theory, thanks for sharing! Certainly makes sense to me.
Horses allow someone to cover far more ground than all the bfooters stumbling around on foot.
@@spiritualarchitect4276 why did,on "Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005"on TH-cam,did they reveal how when why by who they hoaxes the bigfoot sighting if they didn't Hoax it 🤔🤯?Another skeptucs question 😆🤭
Yes I agree very interesting cercomespection👍
@@spiritualarchitect4276 Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005,on TH-cam the hoaxers tell you everything about how they hoaxed this.....Have you watched it?
The way it moves is another indicator it's real. You can tell it has tremendous weight from the centre of gravity it exudes. 700lb was the estimate so you can imagine the male is 1000 plus. The main argument against for me is we don't have scientific proof.
It is a guy in a suit. Get over it.
@@Diviance you're an average self important internet poser, get over yourself
@@Uncanny_Mountain Paterson Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax Revealed 2005 ,on TH-cam shuts up the arrogant bigmouth self appointed patty experts instantly 🤣🤣🤣👍.Don't expect thx for showing them what fucktards they are tho lol
@@rayoleary7581those guys are believing the bogus heironimus claims. Laughable video.
@@rayoleary7581they're all idiots. They believe heironimus.
One of the things I find compelling is the sense of mass it gives me while moving. And as someone else stated, the ripple you see throughout her leg when she turns her head and jams her leg. I've also watched clips where shortly after it happened a guy walked the same path at Bluff Creek with Patty superimposed doing the same. I think the guy was 6'-6" and Patty's thigh was about as big as his waist.
the only thing that would be hard to believe is that she allowed herself to be seen in the middle of the day in an exposed river bed.
if they were out there on horses... she would've heard and smelled them long before they ever seen her, giving her plenty of time to leave the area.
Her reaction is one of surprise, like she was unaware of them until they practically bumped into her. And then she just walks away like a crooked politician avoiding a news crew.
They had rode in that area before, so she may have thought they had left. Their return surprised her.
It could also be argued that the sound of horses, often wild animals themselves, didn't alarm her & the smell of the horses covered the human scent. Patterson said it was hot, the horses had been working hard & were sweating a lot.
You're right it doesn't seem natural that she would be so casual. A reasonable explanation for that could be that there were other sasquatch in the trees nearby, so she simply calmly walked towards them.
Let's also assume that she's intelligent. Equally intelligent as a human, but in different ways. She may have decided that moving slowly away would be more likely to result in her escape than running away, similar to encountering a bear or mountain lion - creatures which they must encounter frequently if sasquatch are real.
@Luthermutt_Notwell yet you watch videos about it anyways... 🤔
@Luthermutt_Notwell you're in a bigfoot video comment section Luther...
@Luthermutt_Notwell no... but it shows you watch videos about something you don't believe in.
Put the pookie down and go to bed.
One thing you wasn't mentioned is that you can also see the toes flexing upwards with each footstep, which is another aspect that could not be reproduced with a suit. I believe that if it was possible to make such an elaborate and convincing suit, it would require a lot of animatronics that hadn't even been invented back in 1967.
EGG...ZACKLEY¡!!
IF SOLID ENOUGH TO PROTECT FEET FROM ROCKS...
WAY WAY TOO STIFF TO DORSIFLEX UPWARDLY...
EVEN IF SOFT AS POSSIBLE AND NOT PROTECTIVE...
..STILL TOO STIFF
Do you, or anyone, have the details for that BBC doc you mentioned? Been trying to locate a specific one for years, but haven't been able to find it.
All I know, the suit they used was as bad as Morris and heironimus.
These are all good reasons, but there's several more I could have added. This film is 100% real.
Yes, this certainly wasn’t an exhaustive list. Perhaps I’ll do a part 2 in the future.
@@cabininthewoods517 near future :)
Wrong. The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
@@Demonizer5134 The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to stop believing these videos from affiliates of Bigfoot merch peddlers.
@@cabininthewoods517 Nice Farmers Tan @ 5:15 Just to let you know, my Brother saw a Dogman when driving down a less traveled road in Mercer County, KY. He was riding shotgun (around the of 15 or 16...couldn't have his license yet), while his girlfriend's older sister was the driver taking him to see his girlfriend out in the country. When the driver screamed and my brother put his arm out to slow her forward movement by having to slam on the brakes. She had her high beams on when they came to a complete stop...what they both say to this day (the older sister usually doesn't want to talk about it), was a bi-pedal wolf/German Shepherd like dog was walking across the road in a hurky jurky movement (this a key part of other encounters; like it walked like a marionette puppet...meaning like it didn't belong in our dimension). My brother started weeping when he came home and avoided Johnson Pike altogether. He said that after the car came to a stop, the creature nibbling on some kinda berry off a tree limb over hanging the country road. He then stated the creature's legs were hocked or 'bent backwards' like dog legs but clearly walking upright. I asked him how tall and to draw it (My family is full of artist and my brother had 2 art scholarships). He guessed it being between 6'8" and 7' 4' (he later went back to the spot in the daytime and found their tire marks and the overhanging limb and was able to determine it was tad over 7' tall. He drew this with a dog lower body, but with a more human upper body with large hands like a raccoon and a wolf/German Sheperd mix type face. One note, they had their high beams on and slammed on the breaks to not hit the creature...so he said it was about12 yards away from the front bumper. He then stated the thing looked them and ran so eloquently and fast that it almost appeared it was gliding as the 'jurkyness' had left its type of physical motor skills...It then cleared a 5-foot barbed wire fence and disappeared into the dark forest. My Brother has been on A&E and the Travel story (which I was a witness) when he 'ghost' hunted. However, now he runs one of the Biggest Cryptid Conventions in America with celebrities, books, evidence, etc. His convention is aptly named Cryptid Con (not to be confused with Crypticon). Hit him up... November 23-24, 2024 Clarion Conference Center North Lexington, KY.
When I studied it in slow motion, I noticed the foot pads are white. Absolutely fake!
The sand is gray, not white. Patty's feet are gray.
Dr.Meldrum , the same guy who has "authenticed " admittedly fake plaster casts on multiple occasions.
it is convinced that bf believers usually believe in loch ness monster and aliens as well. So sad this lot.
She has toes flexing. No shoes, no suit.
Toes, not shoes.
The stabilization has an amazing result.
I was skeptical about every video ever seen. Then I saw this almost 60 year old Patterson film and was convinced Bigfoot is real. That was no man in a monkey suit; too detailed.
Exactly, yes. Too tall, too broad, hunched over, short legs, big torso, long arms on wide shoulders, head turns, etc. Impossible to reach for human anatomy and get this realistic in '60s f/x or even today because fact is our human anatomy can't fit suits built that way. We're the opposite of ape anatomy; we have short arms, long legs, small torso. There's just no way to do it, the kids in denial are just clueless and never saw Harry and the Henderson for proof.
And the costume is impossible for 1967. Nobody would have made it female.
Patty was more real than you.
Patty isn't real.
DOMINANCE bigfoot doesn't exist 💪
I didn’t need convincing, but thoroughly enjoyed this video anyway. Well done 👍
Thank you!
Totally agree with your reasons and conclusions. The subject in the PGF is a 'real' Bigfoot. I would only add that the limb proportions are not absolutely off the scale for humans, but most humans have different arm/leg ratios to 'Patty'. Great piece of work. Not too complex, not trying to cover too many things at once. The reasons given here are quite sufficient to prove the point to all except those who don't want to believe. Well done in presenting this video.
Wrong. The body ratio perfectly matches an average human.
No, its been measured repeatedly that it has a much higher arm to leg ratio than humans. It's in between humans and apes.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824 Then you clearly know nothing about this subject. I said that there are humans who fit with Patty's ratios, but they are far from a majority. There are far more humans who don't match Patty's arms/legs ratios.
@@davidcopson5800 So then what's your point besides it's possible that it's a human?
@@robertcoggeshall3071 🐂 💩
The technology was not available back then to fake this video and nobody would have thought to try to imitate a female creature at that. It moves too perfect to be fake especially being filmed 57 years ago. Even the movies that are made don't come close.
ya making a gorilla suit was impossible in 1967...
@@member93a female one would never have been done.
@@MichaelVaporis Oh, good grief.
1. There's nothing special about the gait. The truth is, I just watched a video of an interview with Bob Heironimus, and in that video, he walks EXACTLY like that.
2. Okay, so the costume/suit has never been found. And a likely explanation for that is that Patterson simply destroyed it.
3. It's not hard to imagine how the description of the suit might differ from the man who claimed he made it, and the man who claimed he wore it, after such a large period of time has passed. Their description of it has many similarities, too.
4. I see no muscular movement. The film quality is too poor and the subject is too far away. But even if there IS, it's easy to replicate that effect. There is an old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath suits and costumes to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur or fabric.
5. Patterson was a known thief and liar. Greg Long's gook "The Making of Bigfoot" takes a long look at his character. Apparently, Patterson cheated everybody. He may have run a regular check fraud routine, but his standard approach was simply to run up huge bills and then refuse to pay. Summary: “Roger Patterson’s character fails the smell test,” writes Long. “Sum up all the information about Roger Patterson, and it comes down to two simple points. One, he had the ability to conceive of and create a Bigfoot suit, and two, he was a crook.”
Patty > than all your bots.
Patty doesn't exist
Imagine how cute a baby bigfoot would be LMAO
Yeah... about as cute as a big one... not.
Did I miss you mentioning the breasts?
Who would make a suit (especially) in that day and age and add breasts?
Complicated, time consuming and I'm assuming very expensive.
Great points brought up in the video.
Sub'd !
Thanks for the support! I didn’t mention the breasts but you are perfectly correct. That detail and others could be enough for a part 2 sometime.
The breasts wouldn't have been added like many say. Imo, it's a foolish argument.
Yeah, nobody would add breasts to a bf suit.
@@robertcoggeshall3071Especially not a cowboy obsessed with female Sasquatch.👌🏻👍🏻
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824 are you saying Patterson wanted to have his way with a bigfoot, that's methed up
Patty was definitely real. Suit is far too good for 1967, and her tracks back up a real bf.
Absolutely correct. 👍
Suit is probably too good for today. You've seen the modern attempts to recreate the suit? They all look ridiculous.
Gullible. The legend of Bigfoot started in 1958 when Ray L Wallace and Rant Mullens started hoaxing Squatch footprints in Humboldt County. Before that, ZERO "Bigfoot Tracks" were ever found. And it's very telling that Roger Patterson was friends with Wallace. Bigfoot is literally a corny joke. An imaginary creature. It's time to smell the roses, Squatchers.
@AndreSkondras-l8j he was jealous of Patterson possibly outdoing him.
@AndreSkondras-l8j True. Stan Winston is very knowledgeable about costumes and special fx. But I don't need Stan's expertise to easily tell that it's a rather bad hoax.
I have never had an opinion one way or the other, figuring that the mystery will never be solved, but you have given me food for thought.
Even if bigfoot is real we might not find a body in our lifetime. That's what sucks. There was a story on the news about a man finding a dead fish on the beach. The man called the lifeguard to clean it up. But the lifeguard recognized the fish. It turns out it was a mythical fish from over 200 years ago. Imagine that but with bigfoot. Yeah, that would suck.
Bluff Creek has a long history of Bigfoot sightings and foot prints going back to the Californian gold rush of 1848.
It's too bad it's named "bluff creek", it makes the bigfoot sightings sound less credible.
Bluff means cliff.
@@philiplindsay225 The cope from Robert is insane. It's pure comedy gold.
@@philiplindsay225 Find Chris Murphy and Cliff Crook did a 1999 analysis of the film. They claimed that a buckle could be seen in the film that showed Patty was a man.
@@philiplindsay225 Robert had issues. Making bots and saying a mythical creature exists.
One reason the film is fake: They were out to find a "bigfoot" and they "filmed" it.
how convenient .................
That's a poor reason. They traveled for days went to places rumored to have them.
Patterson searched for years, and could have done a hoax in his backyard. These two were 2 states away from their home. They were called at home about tracks in the area, and had no time to procure a costume.
Were living rent free in that little brain of yours Robert bot 🤣🤣🤣 #WINNING 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
The cope from Robert is insane. It's pure comedy gold.
I used to be a skeptic of this particular famous footage but I kept an open mind to it all. I was skeptical but more or less it was just because of the footage quality itself..then they did the clean up and stabilization to the film and it really enhances the image of the "Patty" creature and why I now think it's a genuine shot of a Bigfoot is the muscle mass now being visible _within_ the fur. That step she does JUST as she begins to turn and glance, you can see the leg muscles ripple as soon as the leg plants onto the ground when she faces the camera. It's not from any suit or anything else I would call artificial.. but _real_ muscle jiggle and that alone is what now makes me a believer in this footage.
I think it's weird..or even frightening for people to want to admit that it's genuine, because to admit to yourself the film is genuine, you'd have to admit to yourself that yes.. amazingly, Bigfoot actually exists.
Your thoughtful response and open-minded approach are truly appreciated. It’s great to see someone analyze the details so carefully, especially when it comes to aspects like muscle movement and the ripple effect visible in the enhanced footage. Those finer points, like the natural jiggle and anatomical correctness, are compelling pieces of evidence that align with what you’d expect from a living, biological creature, not a fabricated suit.
I also completely agree with your observation about the psychological hurdle people face in accepting the footage’s authenticity. If it’s genuine, it does challenge deeply held assumptions, and for many, that’s a difficult leap to make. Thank you for sharing your perspective-your journey from skepticism to belief adds so much depth to the conversation. 🙂
@@cabininthewoods517Thank you. Well said! Just stumbled on your channel and hit the subscribe. Congrats on the recent 10k👍🏻 ✌🏻
Just look at 3:05-3:12 her leg muscles she’s amazing
Lol, the skeptics can never see those muscles!
Starting At 0:18 I see a line across the right leg near the top of the femur that looks like a fold of padding...
It's hair.
Yeah I noticed that as well.
It's obviously hair. You wouldn't see a crease at that distance.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 I do...
it's not hair
Let's not forget the footprint evidence. The footprints have dermal ridges, the bone structure is different from humans and they walk around the Forrest barefoot.
In 1967 Patterson and Gimlin would not have added breasts on a costume. It would’ve been an extra problem that they would have to deal with, I have seen clearer videos where Patty’s breasts move up and down, looking just as natural as a woman walking topless. Their film is 100% real.
We know that Patterson not only knew about the William Roe encounter (during which a female Bigfoot was spotter by a hunter) but he also drew an illustration of it. On top of that the PG film has several more similarities to the Roe encounter such as the way it begins with the Bigfoot crouching andunaware of the people observing, the unhurried pace away, and the casual glances back as she leaves. That Patterson is known to have intended to film recreations of famous encounters for his documentary makes all of this more then a little suspicious also Roger was shown an artists rendering of a female Sasquatch by John Green in 1964-5 and had drawings of female Sasquatchs in his book Do Abominable Snowmen of America really Exist 1966.
@@Aran.Rinzeihe drew mostly males in his book, and sculpted a male head. Means nothing that Patty was female. The males probably wouldn't have got caught like that.
@@robertcoggeshall3071Patterson was obsessed with female Sasquatch. Makes sense he'd have breasts on the costume.
The breasts are stiff, completely fur covered and never sway or jiggle. Totally atypical of primates and hominids. Fake.
It’s never a costume. 41 inch stride length in a suit like that, wearing nfl shoulder pads, big fake feet and at least padded out twice as wide as a human. Over a rocky woody creek bed.
It’s real, one of many, alike and not alike. I think a lot of legend and lore is based on misidentification. Thanx for the video.
Agreed, and you’re welcome!
You've obviously never thoroughly researched Roger Patterson then...🤦🏻♂️
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824neither have you.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 Wrong. I know more about Patterson than you. Obviously.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824 no way. Known about the case since the early 70s. Most things about Patterson are exaggerations and urban legends.
Not one costume from that era on TV or in the movies had apes/gorillas with breasts.
Only a specific female creature in movies had them.
Why hasn’t anyone found a “Bigfoot” skeleton? EVER…
Because, there's none to find... unless you count that frozen coat in a freezer they tried passing off as one! LOL!
Let’s address this head on.
1. Why haven’t Bigfoot skeletons been found?
Finding skeletal remains of any large animal, let alone an elusive one, is exceedingly rare. Consider these points:
- Decomposition: In wilderness environments, remains are quickly scavenged by animals, insects, and bacteria. Bones deteriorate even faster in wet, acidic soils, such as those found in the forests where Bigfoot is often reported.
- Rarity of Finds: Even with large known species like bears, finding intact skeletons is rare. When was the last time someone stumbled upon a complete bear skeleton in the wild?
- Behavioral Hypotheses: Some researchers theorize that Bigfoot, like other intelligent primates, may deliberately avoid leaving remains. Some animals are known to hide their dead, a behavior that would make finding remains even harder.
2. The suppression of evidence
The idea that Bigfoot remains would automatically make it to public knowledge is naive, given numerous claims of suppression.
- David Paulides: In his book “The Hoopa Project”, Paulides mentions reports of physical evidence being confiscated or dismissed by authorities. He describes how indigenous witnesses and researchers are often ignored or ridiculed when they report tangible findings.
- Peter Byrne: This respected Bigfoot researcher recounts in interviews how potential evidence, including bones, has mysteriously disappeared after being sent for analysis.
- Anthropological Bias: Scientists working within mainstream institutions are hesitant to publish findings that might jeopardize their careers. Even if remains were found, the lack of institutional support or outright dismissal would make it hard for the public to know.
3. Why you wouldn’t know if evidence existed
- Government Suppression: If Bigfoot were real, it could represent a species that might necessitate massive environmental protections. This would disrupt logging, mining, and other industries. As Paulides and others suggest, the stakes could incentivize keeping such discoveries quiet.
- Media Ridicule: The topic of Bigfoot is treated as a joke in popular culture. Even credible evidence is buried under ridicule or labeled as hoaxes before the public takes it seriously.
- Access Issues: Bones or other evidence would likely be discovered in remote areas where few people venture. The average person doesn’t have the opportunity or resources to verify such findings.
To sum up, the lack of a discovered skeleton doesn’t invalidate the possibility of Bigfoot. If no one questions why we rarely find bear skeletons, the assumption that Bigfoot skeletons would be plentiful is deeply flawed. Furthermore, evidence may exist but is ignored, suppressed, or discredited-making your certainty a reflection of ignorance rather than proof of absence.
As Einstein said: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Truly, you are a master of deduction. 🙂
@@cabininthewoods517 Actually, it was Martin Reese, a British Cosmologist that said that. And your pitiful attack on a fundamental instrument of legitimate scientific research is quite laughable.
Another champion of science often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and/or evidence... so if you expect anyone, especially science, to take you seriously, you'd best pony up with that proof or learn to live with the rightfully appropriate derision that you get.
@@RockwellRhodesAs a Native American, Cherokee & Chickasaw, living in the Midwest, we have a bounty of black bears, yet I have never seen one. We have a bounty of mountain lions, yet I have never seen one. Both avoid humans for the most part. I have never seen a skeleton of either. My ancestors, both the Cherokee & Chickasaw, spoke of this creature as a real entity. Much more intelligent than considered. To the Chickasaw they are violent; to the Cherokee friendly. To discredit a shared story hypothesis, we share names of stories & story structures, with some of our fables, yet, when it comes to this creature we do not. It has been considered they may be an ancient species of giant ape. If we have no base of DNA & genome to potentially compare a find to, then it is left either unknown, or inconclusive, with consideration of contamination or expiration of viable material. It would be very difficult to classify with no file of sequencing. Per our stories they could speak, & use tools. They had communities, & were extremely reclusive. Scotland, Russia, & parts of Asia have a similar creature. For a bunch of noble savages, considered today even by some anthropologists & pseudo historians to be nothing more than primitive remnants of a caveman past, when we speak about such a sacred being, we do not mention them in mocking manners as a fable.
No proof here just opinion.
The image of Patty just before she goes out of frame, from behind is the most impressive and irrefutable evidence of a real Sasquatch. The huge circumference of the ankles, the huge calf muscles and very low on the leg compared to a humans. The massive buttocks, the massive back muscles, especially the trapezius region. Also the strip of dark hair from the buttocks to the head that is a different color than the rest of the hair, some animals have this feature along their spine. You can easily see the weight of the creature in each step that is much heavier than any human and lastly the gait of course.
@alextaylor8776 despite what some might say here, and whether this video is fake or not, and I think it is real, these creatures exist. It's only a matter of time before we capture one or get undeniable evidence. I saw one about 16 years ago, but I'm from England and hadn't heard of BF for nearly forty years. I had no idea what I was looking at. I was dumbfounded. I wish I had the money to return to Canada and spend my life searching for these animals because they are magnificent. I've invested in some DNA research that will be revealed soon. I don't understand why the people who think this is stupid or a fairytale bother wasting their time watching BF videos. I don't search out fairy videos to discredit people. I know what I saw, it wasn't blurry, and it wasn't a bear. I wished I'd acted quicker and gone to get my camera, but I was stunned.
@ I believe you, too bad about the camera indeed.
Patty certainly backs up the real creature belief.
Give me a break! It walks EXACTLY like a big tall human! This is ridiculous. It looks exactly like a big 6ft 5" man in a suit walking.
Interesting take! But if you watch closely, the biomechanics and gait in the PG film have been studied and don’t align with how a typical human body moves. The stride length, fluid arm swing, and knee lift don’t match a 6'5" human in a suit-unless someone’s found a way to casually rewrite the laws of biomechanics. Might be worth a second look with that in mind! 🙂
@cabininthewoods517 Okay, I'm going to give it a second look.
@@cabininthewoods517 but be honest, while this figure is walking, as he turns to look over his right shoulder, don't you think that looks totally HUMAN? An animal would not typically look over their shoulder like this. An animal that big would have no reason to. Looking over the shoulder (probably looking at the camera man filming) is a total human behavior. Trust me, I find this subject as well as Dogman fascinating and mysterious. I HOPE they ARE real, because how fun is it to think they are out there, and how fun and exciting it would be to see one!? But, unfortunately, growing up in the woods of Northern Michigan, I have never seen neither Bigfoot or Dogman. 😊
I didn't think they had monkey suits that look that realistic in the 70's you can actually see the muscle in the back & BAC arm and the mange on the fur looks natural to me
I don't see how dogmen can be real- the Wolfman hybrid was invented in Hollywood. Folklore usually has them as large wolves.
Totally fake. Tens of thousands of trail cameras and not one clear image.
There's a few interesting ones.
He didn't have the zoom in and all of that shit they have today my dad had the same camera no extra shit just the film
No good Trail Cameras in 1967.
@jimowen9438 Not the point. There has been for at least 20 years. Nothing.
@@dominicpardo4783 there's been a few, but disputed like everything bf.
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."[179] 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."[180] Napier gives several reasons for his and others' skepticism[181] 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".[182] Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.[183] (In response, Barbara Wasson criticized Napier's logic at length.)[184]
He adds, "I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus."[180]
The skeptical views of Grieve and Napier are summarized favorably by Kenneth Wylie (and those of Bayanov and Donskoy negatively) in Appendix A of his 1980 book, Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon.[185]
-Wikipedia, "Patterson-Gimlin film"
----
British primatologist John R. Napier, otherwise sympathetic to Bigfooters, thought the biomechanics of Patty’s gait pointed to a hoax-“The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis. There are too many inconsistencies.” Although he did admit he “could not see the zipper.” Daegling, after analyzing the film frame by frame with an expert in hominid locomotion, came to an analogous conclusion: “It is a testament to human ingenuity and mischief rather than to the presence of an undiscovered species.”
www.bc.edu/bc-web/sites/bc-magazine/summer-2024-issue/features/tracking-bigfoot.html
And Napier said all this before Lucy was discovered, and upended anthropologists thinking of how humans evolved. They thought brain came before bipedalism, so a creature showing the opposite, like Patty and Lucy, was against the then consensus. Piltdown man fooled such scientists as Napier and Daegling for 30 years, before being proven a hoax. I find it ironic that science got fooled by piltdown man and put in textbooks, but decry Patty, even though she's a perfect representation of early hominids, which Patterson knew nothing about.
Napier said all that before Lucy was discovered, proving patty as a hybrid creature was likely. Science got fooled for 30 years by Piltdown Man, and even wrote it in textbooks until better examination in the 50s uncovered the hoax. I find it ironic that Piltdown man was believed by science, even with physical remains(!), but can't see Patty was real. Daegling is biased against the film to start with.
Napier said that before Lucy was discovered. Completely shook up the evolution paradym- Daegling was biased against the pg film to start with. Don't forget science was fooled by Piltdown Man for 30 years. Ironic they don't believe Patty is real.
Dr Meldrum also found that Patty had an old injury to her right upper thigh that bulged as she walked. Notice how the man in the bigfoot suit reenactment never looks back? The whole area is extremely rocky, yet Patty does look back for about 2,5 strides?
She knows the area well. Here is a video that M.K. Davis, who has studied this film for many years (also a Bigfoot researcher) and Blayne Tyler (bigfoot researcher) found in the Patty footage : More Bigfoot.
Video is from Duke of World Bigfoot Central.
Link : th-cam.com/video/lQSOrsA0l0g/w-d-xo.html
Now tell me just how Patterson/Gimlin got all those extra Bigfoot costumes in various sizes and using pack horses, got them in that canyon. They didn't.
The only living person I actually know, that wore a Bigfoot costume is Keith Crabtree. He played the Fouke Monster in the 1972 movie The Legend of Boggy Creek. He too is a researcher.
Course there was Harry and the Hendersons. 1987 release , 20 years after the Patty film. Still both fall short of the actual muscle movement etc. as has been pointed out :))
Dr Meldrum, the same guy who has "authenticated" admittedly fake plaster casts on multiple occasions? Yeah, no.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824name some of those, please.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824which ones were those?
Dr. Meldrum is a Faker
@@Rags2Itches There is no evidence BF has existed. That means it was a guy in a costume. The film from 1967 was ordinary at best. This remastered video is a work of art and looks like a real BF. it's gone from hoax to an even better hoax.
Of course Patty is definitely real! It’s a real Sasquatch. Look at all the facts!! Watch the body language. It’s authentic!
@@daleprokopiuk9400 Agreed!
Where did it go then if its real? Only saw 1 time and never again? That's suspicious
@@misguidedangel6550exactly. And how come there’s never been bones recovered somewhere if these creatures exist? Wouldn’t we have seen one by now?
@dannyhernandez265 you ever thought they bury their dead 🤷♂️
@@emeraldfox7175 people have d I e d in remote locations, wouldn’t a Bigfoot have left remains where we could find them? I doubt they keep track of every member of their species.
Love the new hobby and authentic nature of your approach to the subject. I think it be great if you reach out to Justin fom the channel mountain beast mysteries. It be a match made in heaven
I appreciate the kind words! I’ll check out Justin’s channel.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but your arguments are not solid. Your last point, "6. Scientists believe the film's authentic" does not stand the test of debate, and edges close to the appeal to authority logical fallacy. You provide a list of believers who call themselves scientists, and you provide an equal numbered list of skeptics who call themselves scientists, but then you reference only the ones who are believers. That's not closing your case with fact, it's closing your case with a set of opinions. Even if they are educated opinions, we don't get to hear the educated opinions that counter their peers.
Here’s the issue with your comment:
1. Non-committal stance ("Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't") - That’s a weak rebuttal with no evidence to counter the points presented.
2. Appeal to Authority Claim - Referring to experts in fields like biomechanics isn’t a fallacy; it’s referencing educated, informed perspectives. Unlike opinions, these analyses are grounded in observable and measurable details from the film.
3. "Set of Opinions" Argument - Expert conclusions, based on relevant study, aren’t equivalent to general skepticism. Simply listing skeptics without fact-based analysis adds nothing.
This evidence supports authenticity in a way skeptics often avoid.
@@cabininthewoods517 1) Non-committal stance: That's a problem for you, perhaps, but it's not a problem of logic when there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I would be much weaker if I said, "absolutely," one way or another, based on an underwhelming absence of conclusive evidence. 2) You state that the opinion of professionals is conclusive evidence. It's only an appeal to authority, which is a formal logical fallacy. Especially when Bigfootists invoke Jeff Meldrum, who makes a living leveraging the bigfoot industry. 3) Again, expert opinion is not the same as fact. If these experts could prove that bigfoot exists, they wouldn't spend years trying to convince skeptics. They could just point to the thing and say, "There it is." So, yeah, we don't have one to compare the PG subject to, so we don't really have what it takes to prove its existence, especially considering the quality of the video. I know, I know, "muscle definition" and all that, but that's an interpretation, not an objective measurement. For all you know, it's a man in a costume stuffed with newspaper. You can't really get away with doing that with a gorilla or a tiger or an elephant, but plenty of people have done it with "bigfoot," especially considering we don't actually have one to make an honest comparison with. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. No one has facts enough to conclude one way or another.
Here's a common sense reason- suits weren't good enough then or now to show muscles under a suit. Also, her tracks had been seen both before and after the film, when Patterson wasn't present and when he was deceased.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 "Showing muscle" is your interpretation of the movement, not fact that anyone has ever proven. Still, I'm open to the possibility it is real. I saw an interview with Bob Gimlin who threw out that the tracks may have been from a family, and that maybe the female walked that way to try and distract the men on horseback in a decoy direction, like some mother birds do with the broken wing act. I think that's entirely possible.
@@vladimirputindreadlockrast812the muscles are easily seen in the back and legs, especially the tendon on the calf muscle.
Diidnt the one man debunk this on his death bed right before he died I recall or was that another sighting?
2 liars said they were involved. Both discredited. The 2 actually there never have.
The other part that really gets me is the way her right arm swings and the hand brushes her thigh. I think it is her thumb, it has worn away the fur or hair down so much that the lighter skin color shows through. That's something she has probably done unconsciously over the years as she walks. I wonder if we will ever get to an understanding of the evolution of these creatures? Are they a branch off from the homo sapien tree - or something else entirely?
Thank you for mentioning this fascinating detail! There’s probably enough additional points to do a second part in this video series. As for what these creatures are, to the best of my understanding they’re part human, part ape, and possibly part something else that’s hard to fathom.
There is a lump on her right thigh. Someone has pointed out that the fur is rucked up at the end of the hand stroke on the thigh and the hair has gathered in a bunch. That is possible. Others say that the lump is a herniated muscle. Doesn't seem to affect her walk though? Yes lots to go and make a 2nd video!
Have seen this video? I only just found it myself. Its 5 years old but worth a watch. The part following Bill Munn's analysis of the original film loaned to him by Mrs Patterson is fascinating and proves beyond doubt that Patty is real.
th-cam.com/video/uhqyP27WuF4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SandreTheTeacher
I think bf is a prehuman like Lucy or Neanderthal.
I think Robert needs to get to a mental asylum
Yeah, whatever, Laura, Peter, Icecycles, PNHassett, and Andre, lol 😆 Robertcoggeshall bot man, the dork Knight, and his sidekick bots.
Patty is 100% real.
Agreed. Also, I love your profile photo…we’re on the same team.
No "she's" not but you're 100% gullible.
She's real for sure.
@AndreSkondras-l8j no suit was that good in 1967.
@@armyvet8279 Were living rent free in that little brain of yours , Robert bot user 🤣🤣🤣 #WINNING 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
Who’s that fool that claims to be in the suit? Imagine claiming this & lying to yourself & others forever
Some find it easier not to face facts, and that will always be true I think. I’ve found it fruitless to let such folks bother me.
“Feigned disbelief is far more palatable to the lazy mind than an honest examination of the facts.”
-John R. Melbor
Roger Patterson mentioned that a logging company had hired hunters to get rid of the Sasquatch in that area and that they had captured Patty’s kid and shot them both the at the time Patty was filmed. She was trying to get people’s attention on her to save her kid.
@carlosabascal8250 No that's not true. The UFOs took her kids.
Dr.Meldrum , the same guy who has "authenticed " admittedly fake plaster casts on multiple occasions.
@@carlosabascal8250 Patty was faked by two conmen. Patterson and Gimlin.
I totally agree it is so obvious she’s real how can u not see that!! The way the hair goes in some areas and not in others just incredible!
I agree!
You must've eaten paint chips as a child.
@@christopherwalkinalloverya5824chimp like moron , trolling ! 😂
I have no doubt at all that these creatures exist!... Ive never encountered a Big Foot, but I have seen what I now believe to be a Dogman, TWICE!.... And No, I'm not some Goof Ball, Crazy Person...
Oh, yeah... that's right, you never NEVER heard about any "dog men" when people first started talking about big smelly apes lurking in the forests of America and on the slopes of the Himalayas. Another evolution to bolster a sad hoax.
I think a man in a suit would have difficulty not tripping over something. Visibility would be terrible looking out through a mask. Patty shows no concern about obstacles she might stumble over because she has unobstructed vision.
Could they not have just cleared a path before shooting the video or recorded a couple takes if he tripped?
She stepped on a branch.
I'm not being perverted, but if that's a gorilla suit, then why would they go to great lengths to put female breasts on the torso? If they actually did that, then they'd look cone shaped in the era this footage was taken.
Good point! (Pun intended)
Forgot that myself! Great point!
Chickens and turkeys have breasts, bot baron.
Didn't a guy come out at some point in time saying that that was him in a suit? He said they never paid him either but that everyone around that area knows the actual truth and they laugh at everyone who thinks this stuff is real
Watch the video it answers your questions.
Really real
100% real
@@Johnny_Bee Look up the Charlie Gemora suit from the 1940s. It looks like muscles, but it's actually water bags they used. It's so easy to duplicate the patty costume. The suit that Bob Heironimus wore in Patterson footage was padded. Look at butt cleft area. it's padding. Look at leg of patty can see Bob's Wallet. They head is a modified helmet as well.
@@Johnny_Bee Oh, good grief.
1. There's nothing special about the gait. The truth is, I just watched a video of an interview with Bob Heironimus, and in that video he walks EXACTLY like that.
2. Okay, so the costume/suit has never been found. And a likely explanation for that is that Patterson simply destroyed it.
3. It's not hard to imagine how the description of the suit might differ from the man who claimed he made it, and the man who claimed he wore it, after such a large period of time has passed. Their description of it has many similarities too.
4. I see no muscular movement. The film quality is too poor and the subject too far away. But even if there IS, it's easy to replicate that effect. There is an old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath suits and costumes to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur or fabric.
5. Patterson was a known thief and liar. Greg Long's gook "The Making of Bigfoot" takes a long look at his character. Apparently, Patterson cheated everybody. He may have run a regular check fraud routine, but his standard approach was simply to run up huge bills and then refuse to pay. Summary: “Roger Patterson’s character fails the smell test,” writes Long. “Sum up all the information about Roger Patterson, and it comes down to two simple points. One, he had the ability to conceive of and create a Bigfoot suit, and two, he was a crook.”
@@Johnny_Bee 100% fake
@@Johnny_Bee 100% fake.
Gemora 3 stooges suit sucks, bot master debater.
I've studied physical anthropology, and skulls specifically. Please (!) do a comparison with the Peking Man skull (Homo Erectus). In the Patterson-Gimlin film (frame 350) one can see the distinct cheekbones and the outward arching jawbones, the pointed head, as well as the cranial indentation of the temple area. Even the big wide mouth is a match. The only real difference between the Peking Man skull and Pattys facial structure is the size (she's bigger). Interesting fact: In the Patterson-Gimlin film one can also see collarbones, and where they fit to the ribcage.
3:58
I'm saying that this video is hoaxed or anything, because i do in fact want to believe that it's genuine; however, the long arms could simply be due to arm extensions.
No, because they extend the forearm, so the elbow would not bend in the middle. Patty has perfect functioning arms and a graceful swing. Definitely not arm extenders.
The guy has shoes on , come on man😂
Good eye! Fascinating how the many qualified scientists who’ve reviewed the film over the years never caught that, don’t you think? Now they can rest easy, knowing the 60 year mystery has finally been solved, thanks to the expert analysis of “Joe Blow”. Excellent work sir. 🙂
There are toes seen in several frames. No shoes.
@ dream on
@@Joeblow12349 loves the way Bob Heironimus looks at the camera. 😂
@@Joeblow12349 it is convinced that bf believers usually believe in loch ness monster and aliens as well. So sad this lot.
Discovery Plus.... Finding Bigfoot: The Search Continues I'm Billy in the movie..... Bigfoot is real
@@GhostHunterWV DOMINANCE bigfoot doesn't exist 💪
@@GhostHunterWV it is convinced that bf believers usually believe in loch ness monster and aliens as well. So sad this lot.
In the ARMY my step count was 48, that's 48 times my right foot touched the ground every 100 meters. That's 96 steps in 3937 inches. That equates to 41 inches per step... Im 6'2" tall AND would have gear on...
Fascinating-you must be 80 percent legs!
I just find it hard to accept that with all the camera phones out there, nobody's captured any visual evidence as impressive as this 57 year old piece of film. Never locating evidence of a dead sasquatch is troubling, too. However, even if the Patterson-Gimlin film did turn out to be a fake, I would offer my congratulations to everybody involved for pulling off such an amazing hoax that all these years still hasn't been debunked to everybody's satisfaction, and continues to generate absolutely fascinating debate. I never tire of this discussion.
Have to agree, the idea of creatures this size inhabiting large areas of North America without being subjected to serious scientific study or research seems unlikely.
@@gallery7596 My encounter was back in 1998, it was literally only 20-30 seconds while driving. There would have been almost impossible to film it on a flip phone at 4am in low light. At the rate it was running at, I didn't want to hang around.
In 1975, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District, Environmental Resources Section) released the Washington Environmental Atlas (aka: Provisional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory of the State of Washington 1975), a 114 page book that cost over $200,000 to make and over 3 years to research and compile. The atlas contains official maps, graphs, status levels, reports, etc. and lists Sasquatch (Bigfoot) as part of the flora/ fauna of the Pacific Northwest.
A cool little April Fool's novelty. Not an actual documentation of any real species.
@@Sow777Reap The authors of that atlas also state that Bigfoot is a mythical creature and should be regarded as such.
They never said that, but put in a cartoon about mythical creatures being included. A bit expensive for a joke. The whole reason it included bf was because they analyzed the pg film, and said it showed no sign of fabrication.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 There you go again. Tunnel vision, blinkers on. Selective learning. The report on the atlas clearly states that Bigfoot is a myth and should be regarded as such. The atlas wasn't all about bigfoot. Just a light-hearted pun about a myth.
@@WillRobinson-r7c yeah, but it showed it as a living species and showed areas of sightings and tracks. Never said it was a myth.
Some people have said; why is it just walking causally away, why doesn’t it run?
Wild animals don’t always break into a run. It’s a sure way to be chased if they do, they know this. I’ve seen bear that amble away until they think they’re out of sight and then they run. Seen it twice with bears, and it makes sense not to illicit a predatory chase response from what is following you, even though I’m certain I wouldn’t chase them but they don’t know that.
Have any of you seen the whole FILM???
The original film is much longer, she keeps walking & upon entering the downed tree area she turns left & goes down on a fours up & over the downed tree.
When she does this her rear end is completely exposed & the female anatomy is completely visible!!!
Yes I said that because I have seen the whole video & the video I saw is very clear & very colorful!
The video film shown now is many many many recordings old & has degraded the film we see today!
The film we see today only has Patty walking to the trees…
Video ends…
When I saw this her turning left & going over downed tree on four legs the female anatomy was exposed I knew she was real, I believe that’s why it’s hidden & not shown!!!
wow you saw bigfoot cameltoe
The shot of her walking is the last bit. Has been from the start. Patterson ran out of film.
Keep lying to yourself, goofball.
@@robertcoggeshall3071 How convenient
@@frankenstone804no, he couldn't change it before she was out of sight.
Smooth flowing gait on a 6 foot 10 inch being weighing over 700 lbs and a non human 73 degree shin rise angle. All done with ease on that terrain.
Patty is real.
I concur.
@@The1WhoKnowsTheTruth That individual is six foot three.
@@cabininthewoods517 FAKE
@@dominicpardo4783not proven. 2 films taken around the same time show she's taller than that.
@robertcoggeshall3071 What films? You people are so gullible.
That's a genuine lady Sasquatch, with well droopy swingers.