Patterson bigfoot video, how impressive is the suit for the time?

This isn’t about whether bigfoot is real or not, so settle down guys.

I’m just running with the human in a suit thing, but damn to my eyes the suit at least is pretty damn good looking for the time period.(the face looks fake).

So I guess the mystery I wonder about is why would movie quality special effects work, impressive for the time, be used for an amateur hoax video instead of the movies? Has any speculated on this?

If you believe Phillip Morris of Morris Costumes, it wasn’t some fancy movie quality special effect. It was just an off-the-shelf gorilla costume, typically used for things like carnival side-shows where a woman changes into a gorilla, that was then modified by Patterson to make the shoulders bigger and the arms longer.

One interesting thing about pseudoscience sites out there is that many times a pseudoscience group wants to be taken seriously they are **merciless **with hoaxes like the Patterson Video, in this case they even posted an skeptical article debunking the Patterson Film.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/korff04.htm

What ECG said… plus, if you ever get a chance to visit a movie set up close you’d be shocked at how funky stuff is in person that looks great on camera. I’ve seen makeup effects that were laughable in person that looked totally convincing on film. In other words, “movie quality” special effects aren’t always as high-end as they seem.

Umm how is Skeptical Inquirer a pseudoscience site or group? It would be a anti-pseudoscience site.

It’s a bigfoot believer’s website that published the Skeptical Inquirer article because they don’t approve of the Patterson film, not because they are skeptical of bigfoot.

From their front page (I thought it was funny):

What am I, chopped liver? :slight_smile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Grover_Krantz

Disney said they couldn’t replicate it, so pretty good.

You got it Dr. the other one missed the diagnostic :slight_smile:

:smiley: As I said, the main point here is that more serious pseudoscience groups dropped this item as evince, but many did not get the memo.

Not that it helps much the groups that do attempt to be more reality based, they still have a lot of erroneous information as you found out, but IMHO groups that do attempt at cleaning past debunked to death items should be commended. Because I know how many pseudo scientists out there never remove the past debunked baloney from their sites; at least some try to acknowledge the march of time and new evidence that is out there.