If this gets done, what will it take to get it right? Will the same type of camera be used? Will the exact same type of film be used? Will the location be right? Will horses be used to test how they will react to seeing the hairy creature? What about the climatic and soil conditions, will they be exactly the same? I hear a lot of talk about how "they must produce the same tracks as the 1967 examples, with the same depth".....well, let us not forget, the ground in which the new tracks are to be made will have to be of the same type sand/soil and also have the same moisture content as it did on that day in 1967. What many people do not take into consideration is the fact that the ground could have been saturated enough on that day in 1967 to allow for deeper prints into the soil or sand, and after a day or two of full sunlight on the ground, the soil or sand would probably have became harder and therefore would not produce the same depth of track as the earlier examples. Take, for example, the sand on a beach or lakeshore. If anyone has ever walked in moisture-saturated sand, they know how deep a track can be made into it. After a period of drying time, the sand becomes hard and will not allow for the depth as before when it was soft and saturated. This fact alone needs to be discussed and taken into consideration, but let's see how much objectivity will be shown toward my observations about this. I personally want the truth, no matter what the outcome may be, as I am sure many others here do as well. Any thoughts?

Yes...I have thoughts

They are this....

At the time that film was taken there had been a previous flood that had redeposited sandy soil along the banks of that creek. 37 years later that area is intensely overgrown...plants would have overtaken everything and with people traveling through the area the soil would be compacted and different. There are also now shrubs and trees blocking the view that was once had from where Patterson and Gimlin stood.

You cannot remake a film on an area that nature has changed...it is not like the school depository buidling in Texas or the grassy knoll in the Kennedy assassination. Those things are manmade and static.....nature...in a wilderness area is not. They would not be able to recreate it unless they went in and made the area exactly like it was....which they cannot...and the supposed suit would have to be lit exactly the same and move in exactly the same way.

They know they cannot reproduce it....they are probably trying to create the suit right now which is why they cannot produce it yet....these guys are banking on the fact that no one can prove THEM wrong..of course not because most everyone concerned with it is dead. The only person left who really knows is Bob Gimlin...he was there...he says the creature is real. Why would he lie after all these years when he could make a buck himself saying..."Okay I'll reveal the truth in my own book that will be available soon for $20.00"

I have been looking at M.K. Davis's stuff more closely lately...I had never really done so before...and I gotta tell ya...the way the skin stretches over the muscles and the scarring that looks like serious wounds that have healed with scar tissue...
It looks like a real creature to me...it isn't just the muscles...the way the skin hangs..like..if you look at an old woman's upper arm where there is just skin (If she doesn't work out)....this looks like the attributes of an older animal. Plus...she didn't run away....she walked quickly away...why wouldn't she run...I think it was because she couldn't...Davis mentions that she walked funny too...like one leg was injured....I think she couldn't run...I don't think that creature was long for this world. If they produce a suit...it better have all those scars and wounds in place too...!!

Also...if they reproduce something that looks like Patty...they would have to use materials used today. I am of the belief that there is no suit. So they will have to make one to back up their claims...I believe they will try to reconstruct one using todays materials...they will try to get it to look as close as possible...but even special effects wizard Rick Baker..who's lifetime goal was to make a guy in an ape suit look as real as one in the wild....came close, but could not do it. Even in "Gorillas in the Mist" you can tell which animals are CGI and mechanical and which ones are real. Creating fur that looks real is very difficult...creating appliances that mimic actual real movement is also very difficult...the Lion used in Jumanji...looked fake as hell.

If they present this "suit" I bet you dollars to donuts they do not let anyone get a close up look at it....or touch it...analyze it or smell it or test it to see how old it is...or let anyone get a very very close up look at it. (I'm sure they will say it was destroyed or whatever)

As a person who works around animals all day...and as an animal welfare person...I have been bugging the film industry to use more CGI as it gets better and less live animals in their films...but I am told over and over again how difficult it is to make a fake animal look real...even with today's technology....look at American Werewolf in London...Rick did a fantastic job on that...but you could still see that it was appliances and not real skin....making something look like real skin...even Dr.'s have a hard time with prosethetics and plastic surgery.

Nope..these guys are just out to make a buck and until we find a real bigfoot to present to the world...how can we prove them wrong...and they know this...so they are having a field day. Pretty despicable if you ask me. Snake Oil salesmen...that is what they are.

Go, Sosha, go!!! You made some excellent points.

I don’t know that it would be possible to replicate the exact soil conditions because there isn’t enough information available. I recall that P & G talked about how they, and their horses, weren’t able to replicate the depths of the tracks that day, but that could be seen as hearsay. Maybe someone has a link handy for that story. ( I’ve heard of the second reel, but not having seen it I can’t comment on it)
The exact location obviously can’t be used, but a reasonable facsimile would be acceptable.
Focusing too much on the depths of the tracks for the purpose of filming, or debunking, a re-creation would be a poor strategy, although they present an arguable point in the discussion in general. If that's the last line of defense it's not going to hold up on either side.

That being said I, personally, don’t think that would be as important as replicating the lighting conditions and angles of that day which I think would be possible. Also, as you said, the same type of camera, same type of film and film speed, although there always has been some confusion over that.
Without rehashing everything everyone else has said here and on other threads, I think it’s going to be awfully tough to replicate everything else that’s shown on the film using the technology and materials available in ‘67 and any attempt to do otherwise would be pointless.

I can relate to what your sayin about the skin under the arm. I have always though it hung like a woman in here 60s.

To reproduce this film exactly would be near impossible.

The real question would be can one be made that could convince or fool all the same people that have stood behind the Patty film.

Could a film that makes you say wow thats a real animal be done.

I think with enough time money and resaurces anything is possible .

But not the kind of money Patterson and Gimlin had at there dispossal.

I estimate it would take much trial and error not to mention training on the part of the subject in the suit to emulate the walk and movements.

The suit alone could not be a suit that you put on like a gorilla suit it woul need to be a suit applied directly to the skin(to avoid seams) of the subject or a suit like a condom with hair form a real animal simmiliar to SAS(not synethic fibers). I think silicone in areas to simulate fat(not a water bag) But molded silicone from impressions taken from the subjects body.There are other materials like silicone that could simulate fat.

Just to get started your talking about bookoo bucks.Certainly more than any normal Joe would be willing to put up .Including movie production house evidently.Harry and the Hendersons Bigfoot is pretty Hollywood lookin and easyly identified as a suit or man made.

I think it would Take someone like Stan Winston from Industrial light and magic and a couple hundred Grand.

He did the Gorillas in the movie Congo which were pretty good.

Interesting it would be to give it a try though

I'd bank on that!

I don't think the conditions have to be exactly the same as they were in 67. They can tape the thing in a Walmart parking lot as far as i'm concerened. What matters, and all we need to see is the man, in the suit, walking fast! If it's the same man in the same or identical suit, it will fit the Patterson creature like a fingerprint. But if it's not the same man, in an identical suit, it will show on the film! I don't care how much they try to duplicate the suit they see in the Patterson film, or how much the man practices the walk.

Important point here. Not only must the suit be made of materials that were available in 1967 (NOT modern synthetics as that would prove nothing), and the underlying construction be similar if not the same as that used (they are claiming) by Philip Morris -- but no more money must be spent on these efforts than they are claiming Roger Patterson spent -- adjusted, of course, for inflation.

As far as duplicating the environment, it's just not possible. No matter how much care was taken, there would always be disagreements as to how close they came to the soil conditions, lighting, lens focal length, etc etc etc.

In fact, there will never be agreement across the board about this even if they put on their little act. They'll claim they came close enough to prove their point (unless they fail as miserably as the BBC-sponsored laugh riot) regardless of how stupid it comes off.

For that reason alone, I seriously doubt we'll ever see this re-enactment. They'll make their filthy money and run.

It's funny. When I stay away from the board for a bit (say like 8 hours...lol) and then return and see all the new posts regarding the 'hoopla' about the P/G film, I can't help but laugh to myself. Not AT any of YOU, on the contrary, at the notion that some NIMROD's 'tell all expose book' questioning a VALUABLE piece of 'sacred' evidence has literally FUSED together our collective disgust and displeasure of such 'treason' so as to almost declare WAR on said NIMROD. I'm not sure we'd be having such heated 'debates' had one of the 'perpetrators' not shown up on this board spewing pablum and stirring the proverbial pot. I haven't yet reconciled 'his' REAL reasons for doing so but I have thoughts it was for more than JUST 'public relations'.

Anyway, either Greg Long and Kal Korff are COMPLETE idiots and truly 'believe' in what they have written, or they're absolute geniuses (not to mention ballsy) in trying to perpetuate a HOAX where there wasn't one before. Controvery sells. In my opinion, he 'tipped his hand' a bit when he kept reiterating the 'idea' that "they don't have to prove anything", it's up to us to prove THEM wrong.

If you truly had the 'ALL KNOWING ALL SEEING SAYER SOOTHESAYER SEER' proof that the P/G film was 'fake', you'd surely not NEED to create MORE controversy with ASSININE comments on a web-board of BELIEVERS. You'd let the proof in the book speak for itself. To wit, say if Dr. Jeff Meldrum had done the same exact book, would he have been in here CALLING us names and 'laughing' at us and/or saying ANYTHING in here at all? I DOUBT it. Same goes for any number of 'respectable' people in the field.

Preaching to the choir here but I definitely think the motivations and character of the 'perpetrators' is IN QUESTION and they SOMEHOW accomplished that 'doubt' in us BEFORE a single page of the book was sold. They KNOW that what's in the book is 'dubious' at best and as such they're trying desperately to ride that initial first 'wave' because there's no other ones after it.

There's no suit. There's no suit maker. There's no man in the suit. There's NOTHING. No, their cleverness was solely in taking something that was already in question with the general public and figuring out a way to expound on it in a controversial way AND at the same time make a bit of money. Simple. It's been done before and will be done again. It's the American way.

"Harry"

So, what I am getting from the responses so far, is that it is the opinion of the majority that this film will never be reproduced with any kind of accuracy due to the constraints of nature and the effects of time. Glad i'm not the only one that feels this way. No matter what they do, they are proverbially 'pissing in the wind' with any re-creation attempt. They might as well have went to the Titanic experts and announced that they were going to build an exact replica of the R.M.S. Titanic, reproduce the ship down to the last detail, and then sink the ship in the very spot it went down in on that fateful evening in 1912, by striking an iceberg of the same shape and size, under the same climatic conditions, just to show it was actually a leaky toilet that caused the ship to sink and not the striking of an iceburg. It probably would have gained as much furor as their current announcement has to the bigfoot community.



Bingo. Sosha has touched on one of the single most convincing details of the film, in my opinion. The skin at the top of the arm where it meets the body. There's just something about this one part in particular that just screams real flesh and not a man-made Gorilla suit made mostly of synthetic materials. At this point I am 99% sure of one thing: It's skin we are seeing in the film, in my opinion, real skin with real fur, and NOT a man-made Gorilla suit made mostly of synthetic materials.

"how can we prove them wrong...and they know this"

In my opinion it's them that have to prove the patterson film is wrong. The patterson film defends itself and owes us nothing.

You are so correct Barkleyaddict!
The onus is on them..and the film has it's own built in defenses. ...everything that has been talked about in these forums for the past week.
It is so easy to say that someone is lying, and then sit back and watch them furiously try to defend themselves. (Whether the charge is true or not!) From that one little statement you receive a wealth of attention from others who will rush to that person's/ or thing's.. defense. Thereby stretching out the accuser's 15 minutes of fame.
It works especially well in forums such as these. People of mean spirit, or low character can make outrageous claims, be set upon by those who rise to the call, then unfairly accuse the defenders of being closed minded because they do not/ or will not..look at both sides of the equation. When in actuality, the accusers create an atmosphere of such tension within a forum, feeding the fires with innuendo, outright lies, and name calling,non production of evidense, and beligerance, that they make debate impossible.
And their supporters are the same. That is the trap we have fallen into!
There are very few people who attend these forums who I would ever deem as, narrow..small...single.....or close minded! But these are the first things which get lobbed at us by accusers who in turn do not look at both sides of the equation. They try to bring us down to their level.
There is no problem with the intent of the accuser's message...but there is with how it is delivered, and by who delivers it!
If someone worthy of respect came along and claimed to have evidence -which they would produce ..without turning it into a money-making side show of a circus- that the Patterson film was faked...I for one would love to listen to what they had to say!
But because we are not God-like in our forgivness and understanding by which we deal with these accusers, and their followers, who insult us and, our opinions, and in the same breath condemn us for not being fair....we are labeled as closed minded!
Ahh me!
It is all a sad tempest in a tea-pot, is it not?! Because, hopefully the accusers and their supporters will fade away once this book does not meet with the notariety and cash flow, which these people anticipate.

Honestly don't think I'd be so upset about all this if it were not for the fact that they have already done an immeasurable amount of damage to the credibility of this research by making their insupportable claims.

It seemed like the whole question of Bigfoot's existence had just attained a new and more respected plateau, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of all those behind S:LMS. The long and thankless years of research put in by folks like John Green, Rene Dahinden and many others was about to be given the import that it deserved.

Then came the pond scum that saw an ideal opportunity for a major scam upon the public, whose attention had just been piqued. The news teasers on outlets like Fox News and many local newspapers have already spread their poisonous lies, next comes a TV special that will further corrupt the public's awareness and cast doubt upon the science.

I get the angriest (is that a word????) when I think about this aspect. I know full well that no one, at this point, will ever be able to either prove or disprove the Patterson film. It's been too long. That fact would stand whether the thing is real or hoaxed. Only one scenario that I can think of would be tantamount to proof and that would be this: IF the film is a hoax, Bob Gimlin coming out and saying so would pretty much be undeniable proof.

That is something I, like most of us, can't even imagine. And even then, ironically, I would want Bob to explain all the things we are presently challenging Heironimus about: How the hell did you do it? I'd honestly be tempted to think, if such a horrible development took place, that Gimlin just got sick of the whole thing and figured it'd go away only if he made a false confession.

cochise. I think that the Patty film has been attacked in the past and will be attacked in the future by people a lot better then K&L. They can not disprove it anymore then someone can prove it...and that would be by presenting a live Patty!
Yes..it may very well hit the wire and go global...for one day..and then it will fade... as though it was never written.
A dubious book, written and hocked by dubious people. The only ones who care are members of the Bigfoot community..those outside of the community always thought that Patty was a hoax anyway....!
Affect the search for Bigfoot? I don't think so.
The premise for the book and the audience that it is aimed at..is not enough combined to make the idea contain any weight, in the world of literature..or in the world of average Joe or Jane Smith!
It may be hard to accept the fact of this being a tempest in a teacup..but truth be told..many of the people in these forums cannot remember a time when Bf was not a big part of their lives....but the majority of the mainstream out there could care less about Bf..or the books written about them..pro or con. And they could not be bothered even to listen!

GC, I like your level-headed take on this -- and I think you're probably right. I'm one of the guilty ones here when it comes to reacting too emotionally to the whole sorry mess. Your post is spot on and, with any luck, your prediction will prove correct.


With any luck, Bob Gimlin sees it the way you do.