|Bigfoot, as imagined by a Canadian artist. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
We're of course speaking of the famous Patterson Footage, which was filmed in October 20 1967 in Bluff Creek California, by a horseback rider named Roger Patterson. Amazingly, there are still many people currently that say this film was a proven hoax.
Again we find ourselves standing by our position and that is that this film is legitimate. Aside from the fact there was more than one so called "confession" on record that claimed to have been the "man in the suit" the problem is, most of these confessions came about quite late in the game, and one would have to question why now? Why not back when the film was first presented? Where's the proof ?
Why did they wait to confess so late? Here's a certainty..they could not all have been the man in the suit. With that understanding, we know for a fact then that all but one are lying. Of the one on that list that is- for arguments sake- the "real" fake Bigfoot imposter in a suit..what real proof did they have to corroborate their claim?
Nothing is as compelling as the research that came out in 2010 that analyzed the footage using state of the art scientific means and found that the measurements, movement and overall size of the creature in the Patterson footage was not consistent with humans.
Here's a few other things to ponder, and we've pointed this out in other posts, but what would be the reason, for making the Bigfoot, a female? We know to create this suit as a female would take more time, and effort so what would be the point? Some will say to further make it seem real but I just don't think that mindset would have been at the forefront of any so called "creator's" objective.
The suit has never been adequately replicated. Never mind what Hollywood has come up with since this film, but in 1967 the skills to effectively create a suit like the Patterson film creature, just wasn't there. Yes there's the Planet of the Apes costumes which were well done, but they were not full body suits, but were primarily just the faces/heads and hands. Even so they took an extremely long time to put on the actors for taping the show.
Measurements and data based on the film concluded that the figure was 7 and 1/2 feet tall. While there are humans that are actually this tall, the likelihood of finding one that would agree to participate in a hoax ? Doubtful, even if they were told a lie about the purpose of the film because they themselves were a rare find, it would have been a challenge to get a man to wear a suit with female breasts on it. Remember, this was in the sixties, not today where you can be a hero for looking like a woman when you've been born a man...back then, I would imagine a man would find it silly and degrading to wear.
On a more technical note..the average height of a full grown American white male is 5'10. In 1960 it was only about 5'8. This suggests there were very few people tall enough to be in this suit and the suit would have had to be made after finding someone to agree to do it, since it would need to be customized and tailored to fit someone not only that tall but with body proportions far exceeding in length of limbs than that of the average human. Bottom line, finding a human that tall in that time would have been almost as hard as spotting the creature and capturing it on film.
No one has been able to prove they were the fabricator of the suit. It was wildly rumored in Hollywood that the creator of the Planet of the Apes costumes, John Chambers was the one that did the Patterson suit. However, Chambers himself stated he had nothing to do with it and did not know Roger Patterson. Chambers did create the Burbank Big foot costume but it looks nothing like the Patterson film creature and was by all accounts extremely laborious. Another post found in Cryptomundo, The Bigfoot Report, talks about this in greater detail than we did here..check it out and also notice in the comments below that in spite of the report saying that Chambers said he did not create the suit there are still those insisting he did..so there's no convincing some people. We believe this assertion that Chambers made the Patterson film creature's suit, is just a case of misinformation..and mistaken identity, we believe these rumors are really confusing the Patterson Big Foot with the Burbank Big Foot suit.simple enough..
Even the so called experts in the field want to believe it is a man in a suit, but they can not explain sufficiently why the Burbank suit doesn't even come close to what the creature in the Patterson film looks like. You'd think Chambers would be able to make an even better looking suit the second time around right? Apparently not.
It is doubtful Chambers would have even had the time with the Planet of the Apes being released in '68. Do they honestly think this man had nothing better to do with his time? It would be great if we as a society could put this debate to rest once and for all. The Native Americans have always said Big Foot is real. We believe they would know best...they too, have no reason to lie.