Jump to content

Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts uncovered by Greg Long that are not disclosed in the article[edit]

In May Patterson attempted to shoot a film with his cowboy buddies chasing Bigfoot with dogs. He ran out of money. He obtained money to finish the film from the Radfords. He didn't spend it on the camera rental or anything else. He went to Hollywood to try to raise money. He had $700 of the Radford's cash ($4000 in todays money). This is verified by a contract that held up in court - despite Patricia Patterson attempting to claim it was forged.

In July or August Gimlin asked Heironimus to wear a suit that was being prepared. Patterson and Gimlin began pretending to hunt for Bigfoot around Ape Canyon and Bluff Creek, traveling back and forth. Tracks are found around the Bluff Creek vicinity and Canadians are notified.

In September or early Oct. Heironimus travels to Bluff Creek and makes the Patty footage. Gimlin says they were only there to check out some tracks. Heironimus mailed the original footage to DeAtley's business.

In October Patterson and Gimlin stage their "coming out of the woods and mailing the film" scenario. The fact is that the film of Patty was already edited and ready to view.

The Canadians watch the film the next day and think they have prize footage of a real live Bigfoot to prove they are right. The hoax worked. So it begins...

~~Justtalk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? -- œ 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Greg Long's book. He provides documentation for the facts above.


1) Gimlin said that AFTER he and Roger spent time with Hodgson they drove to the EUREKA POST OFFICE and air-mailed the film to DeAtley at 9 pm. PROBLEM? The post office was already closed.

2) Hodgson said that Roger told him they'd JUST GOTTEN BACK from the EUREKA POST OFFICE when he met them at 6:30 pm. They stayed there until they returned to their camp later that night. PROBLEM? That too doesn't fit with the things Patterson and Gimlin claimed went on prior to getting to the store. There simply wasn't enough time.

3) DeAtley always said he couldn't recall anything about the film, but one day he did give an explanation when told that the Post Office in Eureka would have been closed and neither Patterson's nor Gimlin's story matched reality. DeAtley then claimed his pilot had brought the film to him in his plane as he often ran such errands. PROBLEM? The pilot DeAtley used wasn't even in the USA all that year.

4) And finally, Bigfooters decided that the only thing to do is to claim that Gimlin couldn't tell the difference between the downtown Eureka Post Office and a local airport and so they must have had it specially flown from there. PROBLEM? Records show that NO PLANE flew anything to Washington at all that entire weekend.

5) No one can say where the film was processed. Why?

6) The film you see today has been heavily edited ("splicing"). What was edited and why?

7) No one was ever allowed to see or analyze the original, unedited film negative. Again, why?

8) Why did Roger and Bob lie about the date the film was shot?

9) Roger Patterson was making a movie with Jerry Merritt about 5 cowboys tracking down bigfoot to a hidden mountain. He was NOT making a documentary, which was the story that was told for over 40 years. We have the court documents that was used in the 1973 case where Bob Gimlin sued Patricia Patterson and Al DeAtley for his share of the profits that PROVE this. Would you not need a bigfoot costume for a bigfoot movie?

10) Is it not odd that Roger Patterson just happened to film a "real" bigfoot after failing to get further funding for his bigfoot movie?

11) Is it not odd that Roger Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek?

12) Is it not odd Roger Patterson just happened to be a well known conman, liar, and hoaxer? The credit reports, testamonies, contracts, and court documents dug up by Greg Long PROVE this.

13) Is it just a coincidence that Buck Maffei was working at the same rodeo when Patterson was a rodeo rider after he and his buddy Merritt got out of the military? Or that Patterson and Merritt just happened to build an exact replica of Corriganville as soon as it closed its doors (right down to the grocery store, number of shoot-outs per day, speakers in the trees and exact number of exactly the same buildings) in imitation of gorillaman Corrigan's movie ranch?

14) Is it also a coincidence that Crash Corrigan sold off all his gorilla suits (including his white one) in 1961 when Patterson came home from rodeoing and decided to make his first Bigfoot hoax attempt?

15) What about Al DeAtley, who helped finance this film, admits that he participated in hoaxed film? Hmm....

16) And in addition to Al DeAtley, what about Bruce Mondor, Roger Patterson's OTHER brother-in-law? He has come forward and admitted that Roger showed him how he faked bigfoot evidence and made tracks using Plaster of Paris.

I could go on and on, but it is simply ridiculous at this point that anyone would take this film seriously. This was a money scam by Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley. The suit came from Hollywood. Wah Chang, Janos Prohaska, and John Chambers were the men responsible. Why is this not included in the article? Because no one wants to actually investigate the FACTS and DOCUMENTATION out there. Yet there is plenty of it. It was a hoax. Case closed. ~~Justtalk

See WP:OR. -- œ 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. This IS original research. It's in Greg Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot". It documents the facts above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of hearsay here, not documentation. Documentation isn't writing a book. So much attention is paid to the money Patterson wanted to get for the film of bigfoot but surely more people have made money claiming they've debunked him—do you think those book royalties go to charity—yet the motives of the debunkers is never questioned. Shows how you can expect a very high level of proof from one side but lower your standard for the side you agree with.

If you have *proof* of any of these accusations, please post it. Proof, not hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389F:AACC:FD38:2E9E (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, someone writing a book of "X said this, Y said that," isn't proof, especially when it's a half century after the fact. If you can, say, turn up a negative of Heironimus in a monkey suit, and we can prove that piece of film was taken or processed around fall 1967, that's an example of PROOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talkcontribs) 22:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, try reading the book. It is NOT a book of "X said this, Y said that". It is testimony from people who were involved in the hoax. All the conversations were knowingly tape recorded for accuracy before going to print. Again, it's in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:1890:51:7FBD:3EB5 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Learn how to WP:SIGN.
  2. Wikipedia is not about "proof". It is about reliable sources.
  3. See Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Bigfoot exists" is extraordinary, "Bigfoot does not exist" is not. So, obviously, you need stronger evidence for the first.
Your way of arguing does not work here. You need to be better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YOUR way of arguing doesn't work here. Try looking up the word "hearsay" before misapplying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:A84D:462F:96F2:D894 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected your indentation. Read WP:INDENT.
I did not even use the word "hearsay", let alone misapply it. I only explained that Wikipedia does not work the way you think it does. But I forgot to link WP:RS and WP:OR. Read those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article[edit]

This article is great and fun to read. Portillo (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

I've tagged a few. These need to be clarified. There may well be others. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ones from the lead as they are unnecessary. See WP:LEAD. -- œ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Munns Analysis[edit]

I am no wikipedia expert but this section only makes reference to Bill Munns' website and claims he has done the most extensive analysis of the film yet to date. I am not sure if this would be original research and should be removed, or if it needs to be expanded further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Request edit}}, since I am the named person, submitting information about myself (also new to the Wiki protocols, so apologize if I am formatting anything wrong):

Bill Munns has been studying this film since Jan. 2008, as a researcher with intention to publish analysis and findings of this film. "The Munns Report" now comprises a series of website available PDF documents totaling over 150 pages of research and analysis. Munns has contributed to the film's analysis in two specialized ways.

One is with extensive discussions of how movie creature suits are designed and fabricated, so discussions of whether the Patterson Gimlin Film's subject is or is not a hoax with a costumed human, those discussions may have a stronger foundation of factual information about such suits and particularly the materials available in 1967 to fabricate them. The actual "Creature Suit Analysis" material is on the Bigfoot Forums/Film, Video Discussions/Patterson Gimlin Film.


Discussion threads cited are on "Creature Suit Analysis 1-12"

His resume of experience in this profession is at www.billmunnscreaturegallery.com

Second is that Munns has done more high resolution scanning of film copies than any prior individual, and assembled a film frame inventory database which may be the largest centralized source for film image data for analysis, for all future studies of the physical film itself, and issues of frame numbering, splicing or editing, image artifacts from copying, camera starts and stops, cropping issues, grading the quality of copies to appraise their potential for analysis, and establishing a foundation for new potential science techniques (like a stereo-photogrammetry analysis of the film site, and definitive analysis of the lens used on the camera) to resolve some issues that evaded any final analysis previously.

More detailed descriptions of this material are at:

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_050.htm PDF Documents: PDF 3.2 The Physical Film, Part #1 PDF 3.2 The Physical Film Part #2 PDF 3.2 The Physical Film Part #3

BillMunns (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't think this belongs in here quite yet. For one thing, it reads awfully like self-promotion. But what's more important is that I don't think your analysis of this video has yet made an impact in the world. We shouldn't go ahead and mention it until it has been picked up by more notable investigators. If you can offer up information showing that your work has made a significant impact on the scholarship relating to this film outside of your own website and posts on internet forums, please let me know and I can rereview the request. ThemFromSpace 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the notation. I have no problem with letting others appraise my effort and if anyone feels that further notation be made in your article, that's fine. I wouldn't know exactly how to appraise or guage the impact of my work on the film controversy. So I'm fine with letting the discussion unfold with other participants contributing their appraisals or information. I'll just continue to check in occasionally to see how it develops.

BillMunns (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It IS self-promotion. Let's not forget that Bill Munns is a make up man with ZERO experience in 60's creature suits. He claimed, for instance, that he had never seen a two-piece ape suit before. That is pretty bad since ALL professional ape suits were (and still are) made in this fashion. Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF. ~~just talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I specifically asked the editorial staff to advise if there was any conflict of interest, respectful of the protocols here. Second, I started doing makeup in 1967, a fact, so the comment above is incorrect on that point. Third, two piece ape suits are not the standard but a rarity rarely seen, so the comment above is not supported by any industry knowledgable source. Fourth, Jeff Pruit "AKA Dfoot" did not post to the BFRO, but to the BFF (another error of the above comment), and on the JREF, anyone can read my letter explaining why I am not actively posting there anymore, although I still hold an account in good standing and have posted occasionally, long after Jeff ceased all activity there. So to say I left because of him, or never returned there, are also falsehoods the JREF forum itself can refute, by it's archived material

My work does inspire some people to invent falsehoods to try and discredit me. The above comment is merely an example. The fact that the comment is anonymous certainly must give us pause to consider why the person making the accusations against me chose to hide his/her identity.

BillMunns (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....you discredited yourself when you said that you had never seen a two-piece ape suit before. It doesn't matter if who posted it is anonymous or not. Just sayin'. ~~just talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, January 27, 2011

Just following up to document why the unsigned remarks are not factually correct. The unsigned person claimed "Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF"

My most recent post to the JREF was July 18, 2010, (and jeff pruit had been long gone by then), Thread title: "Bigfoot PG Film The Munns Report", page 89, post #3549.

So i still do post there whenever I feel it's appropriate to add to a conversation.

BillMunns (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Munns, I seen your analysis of the film on the television show MonsterQuest. Is this parts of the same analysis that is on your website? -- œ 06:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the above, I was doing my analysis for more than a year before the MonsterQuest people asked me to be part of one of their programs, and I've continued to do a lot more research since that show was filmed, but the MQ program did provide some help to advance my research and what they featured in their program was the current status of my work at the time of filming (February, 2009). As with any good research, new work and new data can change some conclusions, and so my current analysis has evoloved somewhat beyond what they presented back then. On the lens issue, I am specifically reviewing the entire process and factoring in other considerations which were not available to me then, so the lens and height calculation are being reconsidered with more variables factored into the equation.

BillMunns (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Mr. Bill Munns report. Mr. Munns did a forensics analysis on the film and it is very well done regarding the things he investigated. There are other issues like the flash of a gun where he was looking at the wrong frame. The flash wasn't from firing a weapon but a reflection from its barrel. The number of pieces that make up an ape costume is neither limited to one piece, two or more. The most important fact that Mr. Munns investigated and documented was that there are variations of videos of the film that have been reproduced exaggerating the frame size thereby changing the perspective. Although I disagree with Mr. Munns' view that the creature was a bigfoot, I respect the effort and enlightenment that he brought to the surface. For that reason I feel that the reference is applicable to the content. The fact that the report is available for all to see on the web doesn't diminish the importance of his work as some people would insinuate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the above remarks, "There are other issues like the flash of a gun where he was looking at the wrong frame. The flash wasn't from firing a weapon but a reflection from its barrel." it should be noted that I do illustrate frames which other people claim are muzzle flash evidence, so I do source the claims correctly in terms of which frames are claimed by others as evidence of a muzzle flash. There may be other frames also claimed to have such evidence, and therein may be the discrepancy in the remark about my looking at the wrong frames. I do possess a complete inventory of every single frame of the 953 frames known, so I have the research capability to positively identify any frame as to it's exact frame count number, and cross reference that frame across multiple scanned copies of the film, for positive identification. It may also be noted that what some investigators believe is a gun/rifle muzzle flash (their words, which I merely reference), I personally feel that analysis across multiple scan copies of the footage indicates a light artifact from the copy process. Suffice to say, this specific issue is still debated among researchers.

In regard to this comment from the above: "The number of pieces that make up an ape costume is neither limited to one piece, two or more." this is correct. Even what is commonly thought of as a "one piece suit" (one main full body section) actually has a seperate head mask, seperate gloves, and likely seperate feet, so that may actually be a 6 piece suit if all parts are properly inventoried. But suit designers can and do design suits in a varied number of parts for specific reasons or purposes. So I simply wanted to concur that the remark is correct, and the number of suit pieces can vary greatly from one designer to another, or one project specification to another.

BillMunns (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two videos that have been posted on Youtube. One is called "Patterson Bigfoot Film - Starring Cast" which shows people/faces supposedly found in the background. Can you verify that the people/faces are actually in the originals? The other is called "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" in which a separation is shown in the materials of the right arm. Additionally there is supposedly evidence of football shoulder pads with d loops, zipper, and suspenders shown in one frame. Can you verify that the extraction is real or a matter of someone editing the frame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMikeAnderson (talkcontribs) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the duty of the person making such claims to verify their claims. If a researcher wants me to look into their research or claim, they should email me and provide their material for review. I've looked at every single individual film frame and don't find either of the things referenced above. As for shoulder pads, zippers, loops and suspenders, I've built many apesuits myself and do not see any indications of such in the PGF. (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This last post was mine, above, but my signature didn't display. Just acknowledging I wrote it. Bill Munns BillMunns (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the paragraph about verifying one's claim disturbing. The original film appears nowhere to be found. It is impossible to say what is or isn't in the original film. I'm only catching up on the subject but my interest in the video's on YouTube brings on questions that I think you may want to address.

There is a video showing a cat and dog in the middle of some frames. It would difficult but not impossible I assume to miss those if one has reviewed the copies you have in detail. As blurry as they are, I reviewed several other videos of the PGF before posting this and there they are in the middle of the frame. Can you relate for the audience whether you have seen the animals and how they relate to the film.

It was mentioned previously about a gun flash or reflection from a gun barrel. Can you explain the difference as it relates to the composition of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMikeAnderson (talkcontribs) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the above: I have seen claims of a cat as well as a baby sasquatch in the film. Never heard of the dog. Generally these claims arise from people who are looking at a single frame capture from a DVD or video, and the film to video process blends frames, creating false image shapes from the blend. The solution is to look at actual specific film frames, scanned directly from the film, no frame blending. Many of the claims of things found in the film disappear once real film frames are examined. I have the largest database inventory of 4K scans of actual film frames in the research community. And I have the first true index of every frame inventoried. So once I am shown a frame somebody thinks has something suspicious in it, I can identify that exact frome as well as identify if the frame is a true film frame or a tv blend. With that database as my resource, I have found that the "cat" is merely red-orange tree folliage (at least for the claim of a cat I was shown).

There are a lot of curious image shapes in the blurs of the film (either from motion blur or the TV version blended frames) and some image artifacts on specific copies, and that does cause a lot of confusion. But for the most part, I have found these claims don't hold up to proper inspection of true film frames at high resolution.

BillMunns (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article a hoax?[edit]

It's pretty plain to anyone that this was a man or woman in an ape suit. While it may be wikipedia worthy does it really need to be such a large article? The article for the planet of the apes novel is a stub compared to all this.

Im sure there are some true believers out there that we really do have bigfoot's running amuck but does it all need to come here?Woods01 (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Meldrum and Bill Munns have more than destroyed the superficial, emotional knee jerk rejections of this film as being the authentic film it is. This film is so obviously not a fake once the most basic facts about it are investigated that it can be deemed as the perfect sociological study of just how pathetic the human brain can be when it just wants to believe something they do not want to believe. All intellectual honesty goes straight out the window and nothing but an emotion driven, faith based rejection is all that is left. The extend to which anonymous losers have harassed Patterson and Gimlin and their families for decades now just for making this absolutely astounding discovery is one of the most disgusting, pathetic demonstrations of humanity I have witnessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's always better to have a more comprehensive and detailed article. Why should yours or anyone else's point of view on this subject have any bearing on the article's size? Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view policy on all subjects and strives to inform its readers the best it can. Furthermore, if the Planet of the Apes novel article is incomplete then maybe you should help improve Wikipedia and expand it! -- œ 06:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly untrue that it is "always better to have a more comprehensive and detailed article" -- in this case it's a major violation of WP:UNDUE because the weight of this article pushes a WP:FRINGE belief. A large number of the sources used violate WP:RS. This needs a major rewrite, largely by dumping a lot of fringe authors' claims. DreamGuy (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a fringe belief, how can it be undue weight when the article is entirely ABOUT that fringe belief, so why would it be bad to have a comprehensive article about a fringe belief when our goal is to be the best encyclopedia possible? I don't buy into the notion that providing less information about a subject is better simply because it's a fringe topic (which btw I wouldn't call this fringe as this film is firmly entrenched in popular culture by now). If you think the article is unbalanced by there not being enough weight from a skeptical viewpoint then the best thing to do in order to improve the article would be to ADD as much as that viewpoint as you can find from reliable sources, not remove content that forms the whole basis of the article. But as far as I see it the article does a great job at providing every viewpoint there is on the subject, both skeptical and belief, and certainly does not need any kind of rewrite. -- œ 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have more of a problem with the way some of this information is represented. Long seems to base much of his book upon rumors, and much of the information also appears to be trivial. For example, take the following sentence, replace the subjects with "someone," and correct the passive voice:

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.
Someone says he heard from someone that someone claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.

--SweetNightmares (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Heironimus was being misquoted. He never said that the suit was made from horsehide, he said his brother Howard had told him that Roger claimed that. So it was corrected here. And unlike every bigfoot writer in the past, Greg Long actually checked up on the facts. For example, when Bob Gimlin told Greg Long that he had never been arrested in his life, Greg went down to the courthouse and found his arrest record, which proved Gimlin was lying. Documentation can be found in the book, not "rumors". ~~JustTalk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point: this is classic double hearsay, which is about as reliable a source as would be Crazy Bob from down the street claiming that he Elvis riding a unicorn over Niagara falls. To your second point, whether or not Gimlin had ever been arrested is totally irrelevent, and being asked such a question for the sole purpose of discrediting a person is not only a dishonest tactic, it commits multiple fallacies. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant if it’s hearsay or not, the fact remains that Bob never said the suit was made from horsehide; he said that was what he was told. Big difference. As for Gimlin goes, the example given was to show that Greg Long provided documentation, in this case the arrest record, in his book. Learn to read more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:8968:C5ED:581F:FB19 (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "obvious" to "anyone" that this is someone in an ape suit. Please don't speak for seven billion people and tell them what they think. How presumptuous of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:3d4c:d403:ae55:31a5 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably talking to Woods01 who has not had any contributions since 2016, although he said "plain" and not "obvious". The meaning of the word "anyone" changes with context, and the way you used it means "it is obvious to no one", which is wrong: It is obvious to Woods01 and to me. Also, WP:SIGN your contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Patterson film agnostic, but I don't know how seriously to take anyone who can't use the word "hoax" in the correct context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talkcontribs) 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how to WP:SIGN, and learn what article Talk pages are for. Since this is the fourth time I told you about signing, I guess that Wikipedia is not the right place for you, with your read-only memory brain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery 360 show on National Geographic[edit]

I just watched the show yesterday - they tested some myths and talked to many experts. They didnt prove that film really depicts Big Foot - but evidence shows that in 60' it would be almost impossible to hoax it.

I higly recommend this show - i was a skeptic myself but now i think this movie really shows some kind of big ape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break this to you, but the costume in the film used techniques from the 1940's. Don't get your information from cheesy T.V. shows. ~~JustTalk

And what is your proof for that? The guys in the show were special effects experts - one from the era and one from today. Both said it wasnt possible then and it is very hard to make such and costume even today. ~~maine

Ladies... read the note at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject". Let's keep discussion focused on article improvement. -- œ 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, do any of you have any contributions to make to the article?MilkStraw532 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehoods, mistruths and lies within this article[edit]

There is a section of the article thankyou, that is titled "encounter", and within this section, it is claimed that 25 feet is the precise same as 8 meters/metres, even within the body of the article itself. This is an outright lie, as 25 feet is a full 38 centimeters/centimetres short of being 8 meters/meters, even to the point that it is 7.63 meters/metres.

This needs to be ficed I feel, and it may even appear elsewhere in the article, or god knows even elsewhere in the website, even on other articles. Wikipedia can it really be so inaccurate or to allow such flagrent inaccuracies? It may only be a case of 28 centimatres/centimeters, but it is not right that this should be allowed to continue unchallenged, even to the point that it is accepted as an article.

I shall change it forthwith. Thankyou for your time to read .Popping Corns 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By giving the exact conversion, we might introduce false precision. I think it is clear from the context that the measure was an estimate, so an imperfect conversion is appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be precise, as the initial distance is only an estimate. Such accuracy is not needed on this article, as it might be for instance if discussing a sport record.--Dmol (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female Ape-Hominid[edit]

Oceania2000 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Female Apelike-Hominid - if you look at the footage, you can see breasts on the creature. Does anyone mention that they created a female ape-suit for Gimlin and Patterson? Or do those who claim to have made the suit overlook this detail? Could it have been real footage that they later decide to discredit for whatever reason?[reply]

heh - not "breasts" - ape suit defects (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find the breasts thing sort of weirdly fascinating. If you were making a sasquatch costume, why would you give it breasts and make it a female? It would only make it more complicated and more dubious, and from the analysis, a bigfoot costume would have been already expensive and technically complicated, without doing that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Why does the article say "It was supposedly filmed on October 20, 1967." How do you "supposedly" film something? Hoax or real, this footage was filmed on that date, a fact that can be confirmed in numerous books and websites. Thor2000 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the date of the filming given by Roger Patterson has been in question, for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Various reasons" being what? i see five citations, all from offline sources, with the page numbers, but no further information. the reasons ought to be in the article. and, if the sources do not provide any explanation, then that should not be included in the article at all. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I (or someone with editing privileges) revise the Coordinates data at the upper right of the first page?[edit]

The latest research, in 2012, located the true location of the filmsite, something that had been in dispute until then. This discovery is corroborated by the presence of a configuration of trees that matches those in the background of the PG film, and by the identifying characteristics of some of the trees within it. (E.g., the Big Tree, the Ladder Tree, etc.) The location given for Patterson's estimated camera position is: 41.26.412 -143.42.115. See the blog of one of the participants in the team that located (and mapped) this site for details and this coordinate claim, at: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/gps-coordinates-for-bluff-creek-pgf.html

A full issue of Bigfoot Times newsletter (August 2012, pages 1–4) was devoted to this. The team's claim is now generally accepted among Bigfooters. (The newsletter provides coordinates for a location "ten feet south of the big tree": 41 26 440N 123 42 103W )

The current coordinates are not accurate. According to a map (from google earth I think) e-mailed to me by the blog owner, Stephen Streufert, they point to a location about 100 yards east of the creek, in the woods. Anyone relying on these coordinates to get to the site would be led astray. Streufert's email is bigfootbooks@gmail.com

RogerKni (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the article and search for {{Coord|41|26|26|N|123|42|01|W|type:landmark|display=title|name=Patterson–Gimlin film}}. Melonkelon (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melonkelon. I found it. Now I'm double-checking with Streufert and Barackman (source of current coordinates) before I apply the change. RogerKni (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked with those two, plus I. Carton, another member of the 2012 team, who is the most expert on the coordinates. He's emphatic that the current Wiki coordinates are wrong. The team came up with different coordinates for different locations on the site, such as RP's filming position or 10 feet south of the Big Tree. The figure Ian suggested is for the (estimated) position of "Patty" in Frame 1: N 41 26 24.7 W 123 42 6.9 RogerKni (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my list of Patterson's negative to positive characteristics by Hidarimigi[edit]

@Hidarimigi, who wrote: "Removed biographical Original Research. Sorry, but this "negative to positive" characteristics drawn from a single source is non-encyclopaedic)"

Here's how Wikipedia defines Original Research: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." My source was Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot, which came from a published source, not myself. The publisher, Prometheus Books, is long-established and substantial, publishing many books a year. It has a good reputation generally, although it prints many controversial books. All of the quotations Long printed were taped and, surely, listened to by by his editors the publisher's legal staff for accurate transcription, given the possibility of a lawsuit by them or by Mrs. Patterson or Bob Gimlin. By that measure, his book is reliable. So that takes care of the "original research" objection.

What about the "single source" objection? Long claims that he quotes 40 persons in his book who knew Patterson, and I (being very familiar with his book) believe that to be an accurate count. He also says that he could have quoted more. (His publisher made him cut his book down by 20%.) So the characteristics they described and I listed came from multiple sources, not one. Any biography is a single source—so the objection fails, because it "proves too much."

Here's the next, and final, sentence of Wiki's OR definition: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." My paragraph was purely an index to the about-Patterson portions of the book. It implies no conclusion other than that opinions about him were diverse.

I think I've refuted the basis you put forward for your deletion, so maybe I should shut up now. But I'll go on, because there are other concerns in the shadows--concerns that are valid. Many people believe that Greg Long himself was biased, and that his opinions about Patterson were unbalanced. They think he strained to put the worst interpretation on Patterson's motives, and the best on his man-in-the-suit, Bob Heironimus. I agree with that, but I also think that he didn't make up the negative opinions about Patterson that he quoted--they came from persons who were his neighbors or business partners, so why not interview them, and quote them? He made a fair effort to knowingly interview Patterson's friends and relatives, and he gave them a decent amount of space in his book. (He devoted a quarter of the book to interviews with the widow of RP's friend Prentice Beck; Patterson's three brothers; Jim Falon; Jerry Lee Merritt; Bigfooters John Green, Peter Byrne, Larry Lund, and René Dahinden; Glen Koelling; and John Ballard.)

Even if the book is biased, it's something that deserves the sort of X-ray I gave it, because it's become a phenomenon in itself. It can't be brushed aside. It is constantly involved in commentary in forums on sites devoted the PGF debate, particularly The International Skeptics Forum (ISF--formerly JREF) and The Bigfoot Forums (BFF). Most of the commenters there are unaware of where in the book to find backup for what they have a recollection of having read there. They are also mostly unaware of the positive material about him, or anyway, where to find it. That's because Long's index is incomplete, sometimes erroneous, and not helpfully organized around facts-and-opinions-about-Patterson-relevant-to-the-authenticity-debate, the way mine is. What I've provided them with is something both sides will greatly appreciate, that will elevate their discussions (because they'll be able to cite and to quote accurately, rather than fuming (with frustration) and flaming), and that will make Wiki's PGF entry more popular. I think it's the most valuable paragraph in this entry--and it's only five lines, so it doesn't get in anyone's way. (The bulk is in the refs.)

To address the concerns about bias and selectivity, I propose to add the following lead-in to my index, and to undo its deletion, if I hear no convincing objection within the next three or four days: "Opinions expressed in The Making of Bigfoot, and the factual claims therein, are involved in many debates about the authenticity of the PGF. What follows is an index to a dozen or so [I'll count] of those opinions and claims, which should make it easier for debate-participants to locate what they're looking for (and to cite it, and to quote it accurately)—and to discover things they weren't looking for, but should be aware of. Be aware that many Bigfooters consider the author to be biased and selective, so the material this index points to should not be accepted uncritically, especially not the opinions of the author himself."RogerKni (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HidariMigi: pinging them for you in case they aren't watching this page. Melonkelon (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RogerKni has clearly spent a lot of time organizing information he believes is relevant to this topic. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a repository for original research of this sort -- and it's a common misconception to believe that so long as content can be cited to a "published source" it can't be original research. Stated briefly, as in this case, if an editor has made a unique 'synthesis' of material, even if based on a 'published source,' it is considered original research. ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") In this particular instance, while a single, explicit "conclusion" isn't offered, the very act of a generating an index of "negative to positive characteristics" requires that an editor exercise subjective analysis of material, organizing it in such a way that the original author himself did not present. RogerKni demonstrates that's the aim of the paragraph in his response above.
Beyond that, there's no precedent that I've come across in any Wikipedia article, biographical or otherwise, to create an "index" of personal opinions about an individual. As I noted in my edit summary and acknowledged by RogerKni, this is drawn from a single source -- a book by a single author. While it may include many interviews, so far as I can tell from various reviews about it, does not make claims to being exhaustive, factual or unbiased. Material such as this generally falls under Questionable Sourcing":

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."

While Wikipedia may not be the right place for such content, I'd suggest that RogerKni recreate his material in a more appropriate context, such as Wikia sites devoted to the subject matter, such as http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_Footage or http://cryptozoology.wikia.com/wiki/Sasquatch.
--HidariMigi (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, junk n co[edit]

The pictrue here about a bigfood could be a human dressed up like an ape. It could be even something like a gorilla or .. But nobody can ever bring a prove if the pictures are in that bad quality. You can discuss and make other 1000 years theses and antytheses and never will come to an end or an aim. Just junk, spam or what? --2A02:1205:5009:C1F0:148B:C148:1A61:9F20 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right (it probably is a human), but in the wrong place. This page is for discussing improvements of the article, not for general discussion of the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patterson–Gimlin film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson-Gimlin film/ You have the wrong county listed[edit]

I was always led to believe the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot in Del Norte County. I recently looked at the story on your site and it lists Humboldt County. The lat long on your page clearly puts it inside Del Norte County. Maybe the confusion is that you can access that part of Del Norte only by going in from Humboldt. Anyway, just letting you guys know you have the wrong county. Big fan of your site!

Bill Steven........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reel section[edit]

There is a line "A ten-foot strip from that reel, or from a copy of that reel, from which still images were taken by Chris Murphy, still exists, but it, too, has gone missing."

How can we know it still exists if it is missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:3d4c:d403:ae55:31a5 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the cited sources says it does? --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point, which I thought was obvious, was that the statement contradicts itself—obviously a "source" says it. If I say a source says the moon doesn't exist even though it does, would that merit including in an article on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talkcontribs) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Learn how to WP:SIGN.
  2. If you say a sources says something, we should not include it. Only if the source actually says it and if it is relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear of Malden Mills?[edit]

In the 1960s specifically the late 1960s I worked at the famous Malden Mills in Lawrence Mass where they manufactured a lot of this fake fur that was used in costumes. It is clear to me that the Bigfoot in the Paterson film was a man in a suit. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe that Bigfoot exists. I do. But this particular film is a hoax and I think Bob Gimlin is a nice and honest man but was simply fooled by a very good fake. 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:3F13 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gimlin was in on it. He's not an honest man either; just look at his arrest record. (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Since 2010 Wikipedia has used a fair-use file (File:Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352.jpg) of this film, presumably under the assumption that the film is copyrighted. The film is not copyrighted, because American copyright law states that works published between 1964 and 1977 required a copyright notice or else they would enter the public domain (see this page for more info). The original Patterson-Gimlin film did not have a copyright notice. As such, I have WP:BOLDly replaced the file with one on Wikimedia Commons per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unedited film recored at 16fps after 1min 50sec the record at 18 fps[edit]

When the video is played bottom left you have a little dark spot at a specific frequency(allow better quality image). On 1 min 51sec the start filming at 18 fps the dark spot is about 1,5X faster then before and images are unclear . Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. at 1.51min he actually filmed off hes friends slowly filming treetops after 18 seconds he noticed bigfoot stating there was no haste, he already changed setting to make a more blur image 2A02:A03F:82E9:FB00:9DF0:CABA:1355:39C (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathbed confession[edit]

It made the news back when the guy died that he confessed on his deathbed that his footage was a hoax; why is this not added? certainly if I heard about it back when, because it made the news, how come Wikipedia hasn't? Also just like vampires and the Tooth Fairy Bigfoot is the invention of someone writing fiction so why would anybody choose to believe this nonsense could possibly exist? same as Slender Man. (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "the guy", and what is the source for this? (I deleted a near-duplicate WP:FORUM post above. You do not need to say things twice here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is referring to a common misconception, myth or whatever you want to call it, that Roger Patterson made a confession on his deathbed that the film was faked. This never happened or at least has never been confirmed. See here and here for some comments on this alleged confession. Melonkelon (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fyou have proof of that, you would need to post a reference. I'm sure if there was an obvious death bed confession, it would have been noted and added to the article years ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]