BIG FOOT: Mystery Revealed…
Bigfoot is described in reports as a large ape-like creature, ranging between 6-10 feet (1.8-3.0 m) tall, weighing in excess of 500 pounds (230 kg), and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair. Alleged witnesses have described large eyes, a pronounced brow ridge, and a large, low-set forehead; the top of the head has been described as rounded and crested, similar to the sagittal crest of the male gorilla.
What is Bigfoot
Bigfoot is commonly reported to have a strong, unpleasant smell by those who have claimed to have encountered it. The enormous footprints for which it is named have been as large as 24 inches (61 cm) long and 8 inches (20 cm) wide. While most casts have five toes-like all known apes-some casts of alleged Bigfoot tracks have had numbers ranging from two to six. Some have also contained claw marks, making it likely that a portion came from known animals such as bears, which have four toes and claws. Proponents have also claimed that Bigfoot is omnivorous and mainly nocturnal.
About a third of all Bigfoot sightings are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, with most of the remaining sightings spread throughout the rest of North America. Some Bigfoot advocates, such as cryptozoologist John Willison Green, have postulated that Bigfoot is a worldwide phenomenon.
The Patterson-Gimlin film (also referred to as simply the Patterson film) is a short motion picture of an unidentified subject filmed on October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin who claimed the film was a genuine recording of a Bigfoot. The film has been subjected to many attempts both to debunk and authenticate it. Some qualified scientists have judged the film a hoax with a man in an ape suit, but other scientists contend the film depicts an animal unknown to science, or cryptid, claiming it would be virtually impossible for a human to replicate the subject’s gait and muscle movement.
[flashvideo file=wp-content/videos/Bigfoot_Patterson_Film_Part1.flv /]
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
Frame 352 from the film, capturing an apparent female “bigfoot” mid-stride.
The Patterson-Gimlin film (also referred to as simply the Patterson film) is a short motion picture of an unidentified subject filmed on October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin who claimed the film was a genuine recording of a Bigfoot.
The film has been subjected to many attempts both to debunk and authenticate it. Some qualified scientists have judged the film a hoax with a man in an ape suit, but other scientists contend the film depicts an animal unknown to science, or cryptid, claiming it would be virtually impossible for a human to replicate the subject’s gait and muscle movement.
Both men have always dismissed allegations that they had hoaxed the footage by filming a man wearing an ape suit; in fact Patterson, who died of cancer in 1972, swore on his death bed that the footage was authentic and he had encountered and filmed a large bipedal animal unknown to science. Patterson’s friend and business associate, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a possible hoax with Patterson and claims that he and his partner had encountered a real Bigfoot. However, Gimlin avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about the year 2000 when he began giving interviews and making appearances at Bigfoot conferences.
[flashvideo file=wp-content/videos/Bigfoot_Patterson_Film_Part2.flv /]
[flashvideo file=wp-content/videos/Patterson_gimlin_bigfoot_Gait_analysis.flv /]
THE PETERSON – GIMLIN BIG FOOT FILM HAS BEEN EXPLAINED!
The Original Origins of This Big Foot Has Been Found! The Who, What, Where, Why How Old, Size, Male or Female, What Kind of Fur and Much More is stated below.
Gimlin-Patterson Bigfoot Costume Costume maker Philip Morris finally comes forward to let the public know he designed and sold the Bigfoot costume to Roger Patterson for the 1967 famous Bigfoot hoax film.
In November 2008, TV Land aired Philip Morris’ story of how he created a Bigfoot costume and sold
it to Roger Patterson of California. Two and a half months after selling Patterson the costume, the
famous Gimlin-Patterson Bigfoot film broke all over the news in 1967. Morris thought for sure
Patterson would eventually come clean as to the hoax, but was amazed as Roger Patterson insisted
the film was real, even up until his death.
The story itself is interesting, as many wonder why Philip Morris would have kept this secret for so long. His reply was that as a special effects producer for Hollywood, he must follow an ethical code of conduct, so secrets do not get out. This is also the case with magicians who buy their magical props from manufacturers such as Morris, trusting that the truth will never get out.
Morris remembers the initial phone call from Patterson as being quite odd, as he was looking to procure a gorilla suit, but he wanted it to look more like a Neanderthal. The suit Morris sold Patterson cost $450, which was quite expensive in the day. Roger Patterson told Philip Morris that the gorilla suit was for a prank, and after receiving it asked Morris for tips on concealing the zipper. He also requested more fur, as well as tips on how to fill it out more realistically.
Philip Morris has been telling this story ever since Roger Patterson passed on, but many do not
believe him and even become angered with his story. He equates the re-telling of the story to
Bigfoot enthusiasts as trying to tell a kid that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
Was the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film a hoax with a good costume? You decide…
The famous Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot film, which started the Bigfoot craze in the
United States, is debunked by Leroy Blevins, Sr.
We received a letter recently from Mr. Leroy Blevins, Sr. In it, he explains the research he has done
breaking down the most famous Bigfoot evidence ever, the Roger Patterson Bigfoot film.
After sifting through his notes and visiting his website, Patterson & Gimlin Bigfoot Film Debunked, we were quite impressed with many of the irregularities in the film that Leroy pointed out. Even more interesting, the research he did into Patterson’s involvement with other publications from the 1960’s, such as his own book and a magazine article, seemed quite damning, when put into the light of potentially being the precursor to the elaborate hoax that was to come.
Especially of interest are the drawings Leroy uncovered that were created by Roger Patterson before the alleged Bigfoot event was ever filmed. Features, in the sketches and the Bigfoot in the footage, are remarkably similar.
Not only did Leroy Blevins put this and much more evidence together, but he also uncovered photographs of what may be the actual suit used in a Hollywood movie, prior to the Patterson Bigfoot film clip. In short, there is so much evidence we feel it best that you check it out for yourself. The following is Mr. Leroy Blevins letter:
My name is Leroy Blevins Sr. C/O Blevins Biblical Investigations.
In my research in the past 23 years, I have made many big discoveries and one of them is the debunking of the Patterson and Gimlin film of Bigfoot. After 41 years, it now can be shown as a hoax. The key word isshown. Yes, I have done a six month research on the Patterson/Gimlin film, and it was a hoax. What I found in the footage and still photos, show it is a hoax.
The claim that Bob Gimlin was on his horse, the whole time, is not true. For as I was going over the still photos, I found Bob Gimlin standing behind the brush, as the Bigfoot walked by him, and you can see his face behind the brush.
They claim there was only the two men there that day – not true. For in the footage, as you see Patterson going down the road with the pack horse, another man’s hat comes in and out of frame (at the lower right corner of the frame). Also in the footage, you will see an image of a man walking off to the right in the footage. However, they took the man out of the footage, but the image of the man still can be seen. In another part of the footage, you will also see another man’s image. They also edited him out, for you see this white blur spot where the man was standing, but they left the
man’s shadow in the frames.
They claim there was three reels shot that day. However, reel number three has never been seen, but on reel two you can see two other men, and they are Jerry Merrit and Bob Heironimus. Both of these men can be seen on reel two that they claim was shot on Oct 20th, 1967.
The footprints that were made at the film site were man-made. For as I was looking over a still photo of one print from the film site, I noticed if you look at the heel, you can see five compress ridge marks in the heel. For if this print was real, the heel would have been rounded off with no compressed ridges. However this print has the compressed ridges.
It was claimed that Bob Heironimus was the man in the costume – that’s true Heironimus confessed in 2004). For as I was studying the walk of the Bigfoot and Bob Heironimus, they do look the same. However, I also examined the motion of the feet, as the Bigfoot walked. I did the same to the walk of Bob Heironimus, and the motion of the feet on the Bigfoot and Bob Heironimus both have the same motion in there walk.
As I was going over the footage, I have found 74 splices in the film, and only 5 seconds of the film that had no splice marks. As for the rest of the footage, it was spliced together.
A black horse was also found in the footage with no rider on it. The horse was about 30ft away from the Bigfoot, just standing there.
In my research, I came across one photo of Patterson and Gimlin with four other men. As I was going over this photo, I found out some things. The photo shows Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, Bob Heironimus, Jerry Merrit and two other men. So, I looked over the photo and the reels shot on October 20th, 1967 and noticed they all have something that stands out in the footage and this one photo: they all had on the same clothes. Patterson, shown in the footage, stills and in this one photo, has on the same striped shirt and blue jeans. Bob Heironimus, seen on reel two shot on Oct
20th, 1967, has on the same white, long sleeve shirt with a black vest that is seen in the one photo of all six men. Even Jerry Merrit was also wearing the same clothes in reel two and this one photo. So, by going over this the film and this photo of all 6 men, it is clear they were captured on the same day. Not only can we see one man having on the same clothes, but four of the men were wearing the same thing. There is no way that this could happen, unless the film and the photograph were taken on the same day. Even this shows more than just two men were there that day. Now, we can show six men there.
There is one other thing I’d like to also point out that I also found while doing my research on this film: Roger Patterson. If you look at reel two, you will see Roger Patterson making the cast prints and he gets red mud on his paints and also some plaster on his left leg. Now, as we look also at the same reel, we can see Patterson standing in front of a tree with the cast prints in his hands. If you look closely at this, you will notice that Patterson is holding the cast prints in his hands, but his paints have no red mud or white plaster on them. However, when he made the cast prints he got red mud and white plaster on his pants. Then, we see him holding the prints with nothing on his paints. Even when we look at the prints he holds in his hands, you can see that the cast prints are gray and not white. They are very clean, but the photos of the cast prints they took in town show the prints with mud and dirt on them. There is only one way for this to happen: the part of the footage were Patterson was holding the finished prints in his hand by the tree was filmed before the part where he was making the cast prints.
Something also about the photo of all six men and the part of the film where Patterson is holding the prints in his hands and standing in front of the tree. The tree that Patterson is standing in front of in the film is the same tree he was by in the photo of all six men. Yes, both the film and the photo of all six men were shot in the same location, for the tree has the same marks, the bark on the tree runs the same way, and the width of the tree is also the same. I matched both of the trees together and they are one in the same.
Now, about the Bigfoot costume. Yes, it is a costume, for as I was going over the Bigfoot in the film, you can clearly see seams in the suit. And, like I said about the feet, they are two different feet. As the Bigfoot was walking, you can see that some of the fur comes un-tucked in the buttocks area. In the film, I can even show that this Bigfoot walks and stands upright.
This is only a little bit of my research on the Patterson and Gimlin film…