Ever wondered about the most iconic Bigfoot moment caught on film? That's right, when Patty turns her head in Frame 352, looking straight at Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Back in 1967, the tech to create such a realistic suit simply didn't exist. And if you look closely at Frame 72, you'll spot the right calf with a vein running down the middle, clear as day. It's moments like these that make it hard to deny Patty's reality. Credit: Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin
(Aug 7, 2025 12:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Ever wondered about the most iconic Bigfoot moment caught on film? That's right, when Patty turns her head in Frame 352, looking straight at Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Back in 1967, the tech to create such a realistic suit simply didn't exist. And if you look closely at Frame 72, you'll spot the right calf with a vein running down the middle, clear as day. It's moments like these that make it hard to deny Patty's reality. Credit: Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin
In the pic I posted they seem to have the view that the bulge above her lower lip is her upper lip whereas Davis points out that they appear to be large teeth with the mouth opened. If it is teeth I don't see where the upper lip would be. Alot of leeway for interpretation of details but one thing's for sure: this was no 1967 gorilla suit!
...Morris says the PattersonGimlin film depicts a man wearing a gorilla suit, which had been hand-sewn in the basement of his home.
When he started his costume business more than 40 years ago, Morris was a touring magician who recruited his wife and her friends to help make gorilla suits from their Charlotte house.
In 1967, a man called, identified himself as Roger Patterson and said he was a rodeo cowboy who wanted to buy a gorilla suit for a gag, Morris recalled.
Morris Costumes was one of the few companies making relatively inexpensive gorilla suits. Patterson paid $435 plus shipping and handling for the suit.
"I didn't think it was a real big deal," Morris said. "It was just another sale."
Patterson later called asking how to make it more realistic, Morris said. Use a stick to extend the arms, brush the fur to cover the zipper and wear football pads to make the shoulders bigger, Morris told him....
- https://www.theledger.com/story/news/200...114644007/
...Morris says the PattersonGimlin film depicts a man wearing a gorilla suit, which had been hand-sewn in the basement of his home.
When he started his costume business more than 40 years ago, Morris was a touring magician who recruited his wife and her friends to help make gorilla suits from their Charlotte house.
In 1967, a man called, identified himself as Roger Patterson and said he was a rodeo cowboy who wanted to buy a gorilla suit for a gag, Morris recalled.
Morris Costumes was one of the few companies making relatively inexpensive gorilla suits. Patterson paid $435 plus shipping and handling for the suit.
"I didn't think it was a real big deal," Morris said. "It was just another sale."
Patterson later called asking how to make it more realistic, Morris said. Use a stick to extend the arms, brush the fur to cover the zipper and wear football pads to make the shoulders bigger, Morris told him....
- https://www.theledger.com/story/news/200...114644007/
Nope. Doesn't wash. Some douche obviously just wanted to claim credit for it. The figure in the film shows musculature and breasts, as well as patches where skin is exposed. No gorilla suit back then would ever match these details. A guy in a gorilla suit is obvious by the bagginess of the suit. It looks and moves like a big furry bag because that's what it is. And then there's the close-up we have of the facial features--the brow and the eyes and the nose and the big lips and the very ungorilla conical shaped head. And then ofcourse there's the whole dubious nature of Morris's claims themselves:
"Morris' wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit. Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.
A re-creation of the Patterson/Gimlin film was undertaken on October 6, 2004, at "Cow Camp," near Rimrock Lake, a location 41 miles (66 km) west of Yakima. This was six months after the publication of Long's book and 11 months after Long had first contacted Morris.[245] Bigfooter Daniel Perez wrote, "National Geographic's [producer] Noel Dockster ... noted the suit used in the re-creation ... was in no way similar to what was depicted in the PāG film."
Morris would not consent to release the video to National Geographic, the re-creation's sponsor, claiming he had not had adequate time to prepare and that the month was in the middle of his busy season."=== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%...imlin_film
Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film.[247] Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax, he could not be held accountable.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%...imlin_film
Another liar suspiciously coming out as late as 1998 just as a film was being made and a book being published. Again all the previously cited evidence against a gorilla suit applies: the musculature and breasts of Paddy, her inhuman arm length, her unmasked face, the patches of skin exposure on her body, the conical head, and the simple obvious fact that it looks nothing like a gorilla. Sounds like ole Bob was particularly interested in money and fame too, often autographing books he hadn't even written:
"Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film.[247] Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax, he could not be held accountable."
Here's a good analysis of these hoax claims and why they fall apart upon examination:
Nope, all he said, he said. You can't demand people accept every UFO, ghost, cryptid, etc. based on witness accounts and then hypocritically deny other witness accounts just because they don't agree with you. That's just cherry-picking.
Quote:You can't demand people accept every UFO, ghost, cryptid, etc. based on witness accounts
I can when there's multiple accounts of the same thing, when there's photo and video evidence to back it up, and when there's no motivation for anyone to lie about it. Saying you saw a uap or ghost or a cryptid only gets you ridiculed as a nut. Saying you pulled a prank on whole world makes you instantly famous and clever and admired. See the difference?
You demonstrate something I've observed about skeptics for many years now. They're always the ones who haven't studied the phenomena in depth, waving around the first crappy debunk that comes up on Google. The believers otoh are always the ones who have studied it well for a long time. So who you gonna believe?
Always go with the ones who have studied the phenomenon.
"There's multiple accounts of the same thing," that this Bigfoot is a hoax.
Every motivation these people attribute to Morris and Heironimus are equally applicable to Patterson and Gimlin... "fame and prestige."
All these people get attention, interviewed by shows or featured in stories online. Attention is a powerful motivator. So powerful that actors will face continuous rejection for the chance to get attention. So yes, people will face being called a "nut" to get attention. We have the whole ecosystem of social media and apps that prove how powerful a lure attention can be, even to the average person and even when facing criticism.
The true believers are the ones who've spent time desperately trying to justify their beliefs. You can do that for a great many things that also have zero value.
Aug 7, 2025 12:40 AM
(This post was last modified: Aug 7, 2025 12:42 AM by Magical Realist.)
![[Image: BxJG05r.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/BxJG05r.jpeg)
