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

[grude]

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?

[engineer_comp_geek]

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.

[GIGObuster]

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

When the program aired on December 28, 1998, it caused a sensation. One individual who saw the special was Bob Heironimus, a recently retired laborer and the person who had worn the Bigfoot costume in the Patterson film. After deciding to come forth, Bob Heironimus says, "I told him (Bob Gimlin), ‘I don’t give a damn, I’m telling the truth. I’m tired after thirty-seven years,’ and he tells me, ‘Well, don’t mention my name.’

It was Bob Gimlin who first asked him, at Patterson’s request, to wear the Bigfoot costume and help fake the film. Patterson and Gimlin explained to me they were going sell the film, and make a fortune.

They would give me a thousand dollars, and then as they made money they would give me some. Despite keeping his end of the bargain, he was never paid.

Further evidence in the Patterson film also vindicates Heironimus story. The alleged fur line of the creature that goes down its back is in the exact spot where both Heironimus and Morris claim the zipper is located. Remember, Morris distinctly told Patterson how to hide this zipper from view, advising him to comb down the fur on the suit with a brush. Sure enough, this Bigfoot, a wild creature presumably living in wilderness, is remarkably clean and carefully groomed.

Also, in frame 61, the bottom of the Bigfoot’s right foot is easily seen. Not only is the arch on the wrong side, indicating that Bigfoot has two left feet, but as this author (Korff) first pointed out in the Fox special, the shape of the feet do not match the casts from the tracks that were later recovered at the site.

[Ornery_Bob]

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.

[DrDeth]

@GIGObuster

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.

Skeptical Inquirer 2004 Korff

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

[DrCube]

@DrDeth

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):

It should be noted that apes are quadrupeds, and no ape has ever evolved to walk upright as a course of normal behavior like the sasquatch does.

What am I, chopped liver?

[Wesley_Clark]

Patterson–Gimlin film

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

[GIGObuster]

@DrCube

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.

You got it Dr. the other one missed the diagnostic

@DrCube

From their front page (I thought it was funny):
What am I, chopped liver?

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.