Student needing opinions for Bigfoot research paper.

ChaseKiefer

ChaseKiefer

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hello everybody,

I'm currently working on my final research paper in a writing class. The paper has to argue for or against a debatable topic. The topic I chose was the existence of Bigfoot. My paper will be supporting the existence of Bigfoot. While examining the world famous Paterson Film (image below) I had the thought, "hey I wonder if RPF'ers think it was possible for a costume like this to be made in 1967." So here is my question for the costume experts of the RPF.

Do you think that a costume replicating the image below could have been made in 1967? Please give your honest opinion.

patterson_bigfoot.jpg


Thanks for reading and any opinions given.
 
Though many people have claimed to be the person in the suit, there has never been anyone who has kept their story straight or have any strong evidence supporting their accusation. So it really has never been confirmed for either side.
 
of course the costume could have been made back then. Just look what they did with Planet of the Apes (1968)

It's only a man in a rug :D
 
The footage has to my knowledge never been definitivley debunked.

There's been people come forth and claim to be the person in the suit but they have no evidence to support it. So that parts up in the air. I'm still at the 50/50 on real or faked. Google search it and you'll find arguments going every direction from they can see muscle movement to you can see a zipper. Personally its too blurry for me to see any of that such stuff.

Now, as to could it have been done back then with the materials and knowledge of the time?

Of course, its not all that far away from something like the Planet of the Apes costumes or King Kong suit used by Toho for Godzilla and King Kong Escapes,
 
Here is an argument for the existence. Even though I personally don't believe Bigfoot exists.

I live in Texas. There are approx. a billion (not an actual factual number, just saying there is a lot) coyotes in Texas, yet how often does the average person see one. The answer is not often. So if Bigfoot was in small numbers how often would they be seen.

and..........discuss.
 
Mullreel said:
Here is an argument for the existence. Even though I personally don't believe Bigfoot exists.

I live in Texas. There are approx. a billion (not an actual factual number, just saying there is a lot) coyotes in Texas, yet how often does the average person see one. The answer is not often. So if Bigfoot was in small numbers how often would they be seen.

and..........discuss.
Click to expand...


There is such a discussion in the OT somewhere, I remember arguing for its existance against Def.
 
since there have been people searching for him for decades with no real proof of existence I have to say............................... FAKE :D
 
jedichase said:
Do you think that a costume replicating the image below could have been made in 1967? Please give your honest opinion.
Click to expand...

Megamicrofish said:
Yes I do, and hasn't this film been debunked a thousand times already ?
Click to expand...

jedichase said:
Though many people have claimed to be the person in the suit, there has never been anyone who has kept their story straight or have any strong evidence supporting their accusation. So it really has never been confirmed for either side.
Click to expand...

Yes. I built one this year and it only cost $500. Stan Winston answered this exact question in on the series Movie Magic. He says it was a "bad suit."

And it's either true or false entirely depending on what you want to believe. If you want to believe it is conclusive evidence, you'll find every reason to focus on the arguments that support it being an animal. Conversely the same is true if you think it's a hoax. Neither side has proven anything, though the Hoax position has gotten stronger since 2000.

Now I've spent, literally hours and hours watching every analysis and stabilized version of the footage, and this is the problem I have:
The bottom of the foot.

Watch it here:
2:30
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Gait Analysis

The monsters palms and the soles of it's feet do not match. There is not a mammal alive who's soles and palms do not match. I've also been to the area. The dirt and mud up there is a blue/gray and a sandy clay.

The Patterson Film, Patterson/Gimlin Film of Bigfoot Sasquatch

This article talks about the ability of the soil to hold footprints. The feet would not be caked with a light color mud then. A soft dry cohesive soil is what makes a good footprint. Even wet, there would be no transfer.

But to prove my point, where that throws up a flag for me, it proves the films' validity for others:
White feet?

Laffo.
 
In my humble opinion, there is EVERY possibility that several variatons of this creature exist in the Arctic circle. There are VAST areas of land that have still not had more than a cursory exploration: Northern Canada, Siberian Tundra, The Himalayas, Even North China!

I DON'T, however, believe that the footage you show that we all know so well is genuine. It's like the Roswell alien autopsy film. Clever but fakeroony! The perp will eventually come forward in the next ten or so years on their deathbed and admit it, because that's what fakers do. They always come clean just before they peg off so that they can bask in the limelight of their own cleverness and go out in a blaze of glory...
Time will tell either way....
 
I still hold that this footage is real. Could such a suit have been made back then? Sure...but only by the likes of John Chambers or Dick Smith and it would have cost a pretty penny. A couple of woodsmen wanting to play a prank just could not have pulled this off. The creature in the footage has never looked like a man in a suit to me, you can see musculature under that fur, the fur is tight over the body, it's black speckled with gray, not loose or uniform in color like a rental gorilla suit would be at that time. Those guys would had to have had a muscle suit made to fit under the fur suit and again I don't think they had that capability. Plus, the creature has breasts. Show me any prankster who would have thought to make their creature female. Too much of a longshot. It walks quickly over rough terrain, again not possible by a man in a fur suit and a rubber mask, he would have tripped up or had to walk slowly and carefully. The head turns too smoothly, not like a man wearing a monkey mask.

Phil Morris of Morris Costumes has claimed for years that he was the one these guys rented the suit from but Phil is an old magician and trickster himself and loves to tell fibs for the sake of publicity. Wonderful man, Phil, I just happen to think he's fibbing through his teeth in this case, plus he's never produced the actual suit as proof.
 
I do believe a costume could have been made in the 60's to look like Bigfoot.With the use of real fur,no synthetics like what we have today,it could easily be made by anyone with experience.Who or how, may never be found,but to use an example the Cowardly Lion suit from the Wizard of OZ was made from real lion pelts and that was from the 30's.
 
It could even have been made by an eccentric film producer with more LSD than sense. OOps! I meant to say more MONEY than sense. Normally, the richer someone is, the more nuts they become!:lol
 
Dunno but what I DO know is that as a kid going to summer camp in the mountains of Washington State we found footprints by the Wallace River. I didnt even know what Bigfoot was (I was 10 at the time). What was interesting is that one of the feet only had 4 toes. The little toe was missing. Anyway, the counselors made plaster casts and called the park rangers.
 
I think that the very fact that nobody has EVER discovered remains makes it highly unlikely that they exist.

As for the film... I think its a fake (personally) I want to believe... but at a distance on that film grade... the costume doesn't need to be that great... its not like today where everything is HD.
 
The remains issue is an interesting one. One of the latest docs had these researchers stake out a freshly roadkilled deer. They put it under a time lapse camera. They said they expected it to take up to 7 weeks for the carcass to disappear. It took less then a week. This was in the mountains of the Pacific NW. We find deer remains because deer are extremely common so thats going to happen by sheer numbers from time to time. When it comes to something like this which is purportedly in vastly smaller numbers in the mountains its not surprising. If it IS some sort of primitive man with a culture they might also have primitive burial making it even less likely to stumble on a body.
 
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top