Own the rights?
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- I believe it's real, 4 August 2005 Author: Shawn Watson (gator_macready@yahoo.com) from The Underverse
You know what this film is, you've seen it on The Discovery Channel or a Sci-Fi Channel documentary. It's the one with a Bigfoot walking into the woods while constantly looking back at the man with the camera. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, the men behind this little miracle, were out in the wild forests of Northern California looking to capture the mythical creature on film. By sheer luck they did.While coming upon Bluff Creek, both horses they were riding on were startled by a dark figure in the distance. Patterson immediately got out the camera and captured 952 precious frames of the figure which turned out to be Bigfoot. Apparently it was cleaning food on the rocks of the creek before being scared back into seclusion.Skeptics love being skeptics. One can watch this film with an already non-believing eye and see only what they wish to be proved a hoax. But this film has never been proved to be a hoax. Or real for that matter.Patterson was not a rich man. And therefor the possibility that he had this suit made seems a bit far-fetched. Plus the creature was well over six and a half feet tall. And it's arms were longer than a human which is pretty hard to fake in a suit. Plus there was muscle texture, breasts (it was female) and a possible hernia on the thigh. To have all of these on a suit that no one has been able to prove is a fake back in 1967 made by a guy with little to no money doesn't seem likely. And if it was a fake then where is the suit? It would be worth a pretty penny today.But you also have to consider Patterson's luck. I mean he did set out to capture Bigfoot on film and through a one in a billion chance actually did. Well, most people venturing out into the woods to find Bigfoot are going to bring a camera right? It would always be a one in a billion chance of coming across one. Not just sheer coincidence that a camera and bigfoot come together. They are both there for that purpose. Patterson also had many scientists and film technicians analyse the footage. Which would be pretty brave for a man who has simply played a prank on everyone. Sadly, Patterson died in 1972 and since then Bob Gimlin has only suggested once, in a roundabout way, that the only way it would be a fake is if Patterson staged it all without his knowledge. But considering the points above, I think it is for real.Personally, if there are Bigfeet, Sasquatches, Skunk-Apes out there I don't want any REAL conclusive evidence of them as it would be another thing that Mankind destroys.May Bigfoot live forever in uncertainty.
5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- Disregard the Previous Post, 27 November 2006 Author: xWickedHeartx from United States
Okay, I have heard the myth that Patterson gave a death bed confession. This is a common misconception. The actual person that did this was the man who took the picture of 'Nessie,' which has, since then, become canonical. Patterson swore to his dying day that the footage was REAL. Gimlin was the one who disputed this fact, but only after Patterson died. He claimed he was in the suit, and came out to the public because Patterson did not give him the money promised for the hoax. How exactly this is possible is beyond me, considering he was with Patterson during filming...Also, scientists and cryptozoologists alike have disputed the fact that muscles are CLEARLY VISIBLE! In the section where the creature turns back to look over her shoulder, you notice that her chest, arm, pectoral, and leg muscles are shifting, along with glute muscles. This is impossible in costumes back then, even costumes made by the man who designed those for Planet of the Apes, as has been alleged. This lends credence to the thought that the creature must be real.Despite thoughts that it is all a hoax, I disagree. You can define muscles, and close-ups of the face are convincing. It may not be a Sasquatch, but, it was a living creature.Anyone who denies this should check their facts before posting nonsense.
4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- A Fake?, 4 September 2003 Author: prizm632 from USA
No one has ever proved this film to be a fake. There were no deathbed confessions and the recent reports that a famous Hollywood make-up pro had created and worn a monkey suit were revealed to be false.If it was some guy in a suit, Bob should have shot the idiot and settled it one way or another.The film stands as a litmus test. If you would like to believe there are apes in North America, it is compelling evidence. If you tend to reject such notions, you see a guy in a gorilla suit.Personally I like the idea that we have not quite figured everything out yet. Unfortunately, the true skeptics will never believe it until some hunter does indeed shoot one and we have it on a slab.
4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Roger Patterson's most greatest documentry is compelling to the legendary creature!, 27 October 2000 Author: (eddy-28) from Lake Isabella, CA
Rating- 5*****stars out of 5One day on October 22, in the 60's, Roger Patterson and his friend were researching on the legendary creature named Sasquatch or Bigfoot. While they were both on horses in Northern California, one horse was startled by something in the woods. Roger fell on the ground and grabbed his camera it was the bigfoot! A real live action shot of the creature. No Hollywood costumes it's all real I could not even believe it. The creature on film!!! A minute of footage of the creature walking back and forth then it turned it's head. And walked right into the woods. Although Patterson died in 1972 with that peice of evidence, more biologists have used his work to find the creature that lives up in the northwest. That footage could not have been someone in a costume it's the most popular footage ever taken. There have been over a thousand sightings of this creature and it does resemble the Yeti in the Himilayas. One question remains is this creature real? I would like to go to the place Patterson saw it and maybe I will look for it myself. I only live six hours away from were it was taken over 30 years ago. And to this day that creature is still being seen. The movie Snowbeast dramatizes what the creature is like as a killer and National Geographics and Unsolved Mysteries and still been researching on it ever since that footage was filmed. If you believe in the unexplained see this three minute documentry and find the creature for yourselve. I know I will. And I do believe after watching it it does exist!
4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- Thats False., 17 September 2005 Author: jeff9242 from United States
This was and continues to be one of the biggest pieces of mystery ever captured on film. At 6'6 and 350 pounds the object in the film cannot and has never been proved to be a man in a suit. Roger Patterson died in 1972 and to his last day swore to its authenticity. Whoever suggested Patterson admitted its a fake got some bad info. Bob Gimblin is still alive and frequently speaks at conventions and symposiums on the film and what the 2 men saw that day. Had Patterson ever admitted it as a fake Gimblin would have never been seen again in the spotlight. I have an open mind about this film. Its quite possible this is a real bigfoot. At the very least its the most elaborate hoax of its time.
"Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?", 24 August 2008 Author: ackstasis from Australia
Ah, Bigfoot! These 952 frames of shaky 16mm colour footage have contributed more to the plight of cryptozoology than any piece of evidence besides Robert Kenneth Wilson's 1934 "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster {now widely considered a hoax}. Additionally, it might also be the second most widely-viewed amateur footage ever taken, runner-up only to Abraham Zapruder's grisly images of President Kennedy's assassination. To the untrained eye, 'Bigfoot (1967)' may simply appear to show a man in a particularly well-constructed ape-man suit traipsing through the forest, but those with experience can tell you better – it surely depicts a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure, a species unknown to science, which had momentarily emerged from its wilderness paradise to oversee the filming of Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin's Bigfoot documentary. If you think you can detect a hint of sarcasm in that remark, then you're completely correct, as nothing could convince me that the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin footage is anything but a hoax, albeit an ingenious one.As a youth, I was consistently fascinated by the field of cryptozoology. Even more so than plain zoology, it really fired the imagination to consider what enigmatic creatures may be roaming the wilderness, just waiting to stumble across our paths and into science. Hell, I even once struck out into the Grampians in search of the black panther that is rumoured to roam the region, a species reportedly released into the Bush by American servicemen during WWII {our investigation was interesting but rather inconclusive}. However, I've never given much belief to the notion of Bigfoot; for me it seems wholly beyond the realms of credibility. Peculiarly, most continents have their own variations on a common theme – the Sasquatch or Bigfoot of North America, the Yeti of Tibet and Nepal, the Yeren of mainland China, the Orang Pendek of Indonesia, and the Yowie of Australia. Perhaps it's only natural for humans to envision a hidden human-like species, more closely related to us than the chimpanzee or gorilla.I don't wish to launch into any in-depth discussion on the implausibility of an undiscovered hominid existing in North America. It would only serve to alienate those who do believe in such a thing, and what's life all about if we can't use our imaginations? However, given that I've established my stance that the film is a fabrication, I'd like to analyse a few details to ascertain why the footage has proved such a cultural phenomenon. First of all, the ape-suit is convincing, at least from a distance, and at least while being shot with a shaky camera. The actor {Bob Heironimus, allegedly} walks with a stooped back, uses padding to expand his frame but otherwise walks with an assuredly human-like gait. Most importantly of all, he looks back! Such a detail should not be underestimated, for it is this legendary frame 352 – an image of a potentially-inhuman entity glaring directly at the viewer with clear recognition and even a certain degree of contempt – that has enduringly captured the collective public consciousness.Just one year before 'The Planet of the Apes (1968)' and '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)' unveiled very impressive ape-man costumes that were convincing at close range, it's not difficult to believe that Patterson got his hands on a simple animal suit that would have been quite sufficient for his purposes. When he passed away in 1972, Patterson gave no hint that he had fabricated his Bigfoot. Perhaps he was simply being noble, protecting the credibility of his fellow filmmaker, or perhaps there's even greater glory to be found in the fact that nobody will ever know the truth. Gimlin is still around, and delivers occasional lectures on the search for Bigfoot, but you sense that Patterson was the real mastermind behind the ruse. There's also the slight possibility that both filmmakers are completely earnest, and that a third party decided to take them for a ride, but surely such an elaborate prank would have been far too difficult without the filmmakers' cooperation. That this footage is fabricated certainly doesn't negate its importance or cultural value – the myth of Bigfoot owes its continued existence to 952 seconds of shaky home video.
A nice fake that does generate intrigue., 9 July 2008 Author: Postal_Dude_Paradise_AZ
But a fake of course, there is no Bigfoot, there never was. Still i understand all this comments about being true because i do like to fantasize about stuff, much like when you play a role game, so it's OK of course for people to believe this. I wish it was true bear in mind! I'd love it if such a thing existed, of course it doesn't. With today technology there is no way a civilization of ape like humanoid could keep hidden, it would have being discovered long ago. The fact that there are no clear footage of the creature but is always a crummy disturbed image proves that Bigfoot doesn't exit. But i repeat , it's OK for you to believe in whatever you like so no harm done.
4 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :- Genuine, one of a kind., 1 February 2004 Author: oreamnos1 from New York
Genuine, not fake, film of a Sasquatch. ONE OF A KIND film that has never been repeated. An utter million-in-one-shot lucky fluke that Patterson happened on this creature while out shooting a documentary in the open in broad daylight. He did not even have a telephoto lens on the camera (unfortunately) as he was prepared for shooting scenic views. Contrary to the utter nonsense one poster left here, the film has NEVER been shown to be a fake NOR did Patterson ever confess to having faked it. There is no deathbed confession. Claim by a Hollywood effects person to having faked it has no merit. The reality is that, when the image is blown up and the central portion of the image is enlarged, a frame-by-frame viewing shows substantial muscle action in the legs of the Sasquatch. How does one fake that? Especially as it was shot in 1967 and filmed by a guy who possessed meager financial resources - and no known connection to Hollywood special effects personnel.
0 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Footage cannot be proved or disproven, 10 February 2007 Author: superbu1 from North Hollywood, CA
Contrary to the previous post, there is actually quite a lot of circumstantial evidence that this film was hoaxed, though no actual proof.The most damning evidence is the timeline -- 16mm footage allegedly shot in California on a Friday afternoon, then developed at a lab and back in Yakima for viewing by that Sunday evening?! According to researcher Greg Long, there were only a handful of labs that processed 16mm film for the public at that time. And survivor Bob Gimlin can't "remember" how they got the film back to Yakima or where they had it developed. It seems nearly impossible... So Patterson was likely lying about WHEN the film was shot. Why? I can't answer that, but it's odd that it happened to be pouring rain when Patterson made his first phone call to other Bigfoot investigators to come out and look at the site, rain that ruined the footprints (human and otherwise). All that remained were plaster casts and film that Patterson took of the footprints prior to the rain -- so, basically, no one could see anything in the sand that he didn't WANT them to see. Did Patterson film it sometime earlier, then just wait for it to rain, to blur evidence of a hoax? And while there do seem to be discrepancies in the story of Bob Heironimus (the man who claims he was wearing the Bigfoot costume), at least one detail gives me pause: he claims Patterson's still-living widow Patricia watched him try on the "Bigfoot" costume back in 1967. I find it hard to believe that he would implicate her with an accusation like that if it were unfounded. And, as far as I know, Mrs. Patterson has never filed a lawsuit against him for slander, nor has Bob Gimlin.However, the film has never been definitively debunked, nor definitively proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to catch a live sasquatch and compare it to the film subject... unless Gimlin or Patterson's widow were to fess up.
2 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- Travis brain vs. Bigfoot, 17 December 2006 Author: TravisBrain from United Kingdom
i have always followed the stories of mysterious monsters, be it loch Nessie monsters, abominable snowmen, the Bigfoot creature or Irish midgets and their pots of gold. naturally i was very interested in this film: it is a document on the legend of the Bigfoot creature. my only wish is that the film was made years later, for it could have interviewed me about my encounter with the abnormal beast. it happened in 1996 when i was on a camping trip shooting grouse in the forests of Americana. as i trudged through the forest, i became aware of a human like form in the undergrowth and immediately knew it was Bigfoot. i jumped on the creature and wrestled it to the floor, but the creature was too strong for me and made good its escape after kicking me in the shin. my friend Adam took a photo of my shin shortly after the incident, and the evidence is there for all to see: the picture depicts what is undoubtedly a Bigfoot toe print indelibly imprinted into the purple swollen flesh of my shin.
Add another comment
