Bigfoot on Film

 
 
 
 

Vocabulary

 

 
 
 
 
 

Video

 

 
 
 
 

Transcript

A half-century ago, two former rodeo men went into the woods with a 16 millimeter camera and stumbled on — Bigfoot!

Cliff Barackman, Animal Planet: “When she’s walking across a sandbar and spreads her arms out and looks at the camera — frame 352: that’s become the Bigfoot icon for our culture.”

The sighting of, Patty as she would later be known at Bluff Creek in California, is one of the most famous reels in film history.

Before the Patterson-Gimlin Film named after its makers, the Sasquatch was a local, Northwest legend; after, Bigfoot became an international celebrity.

But look at this clip from the 2017 movie War for the Planet of the Apes. I mean it’s obvious now with the leaps and film and costume technology, that this is just someone in an ape suit. Right?

A guy even passed a lie-detector test on national TV, claiming he wore the suit.

Lie Detector Administrator: “I’m asking whether you were the Bigfoot shown in the 1967 Patterson film.”
Test Subject: “Yes.”

But the film continues to fascinate people.

Reporter: “How confident are you this film is real?”
Jeff Meldrum, Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, Idaho State University: “At this point, I’m as confident as I can be, short of having stood on the sandbar with Roger and witnessed it myself.”

That’s Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State. He’s known for being one of the few academics to openly study Sasquatch.

For Bigfooters around the world, the Patterson-Gimlin Film is not only real, it’s one of the strongest pieces of evidence of the existence of an undiscovered, giant walking ape on the planet.

Still 50 years later, the film is yet to be officially debunked. So how is this not a person wearing an ape suit?

Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State University: “It’s also easy to say, ‘Oh that’s obviously a man in a fur suit . . . until you see it against a man in a fur suit.”

He points to the Planet of the Apes franchise that came out around the same time as the film and won an Oscar for the makeup. He specifically calls up a scene in the sauna in the 1970 sequel Beneath the Planet of Apes.

Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State University: “They look like big, hairy Pillsbury Dough boys.”

Jeff Meldrum compares it to the Patterson-Gimlin Film, which he shows his anatomy students.

I’m also including some stabilized footage from a Reddit user that helps illustrate Jeff’s point.

Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State University: “I say, alright. I want you to point out as many landmarks of surface anatomy and muscle masses that you can identify.

And they started the head and they can see the trapezius. They can see the deltoids. They can see the lateral and long heads of the triceps. You can see the erector spinae down the back. You can see the shoulder blades moving under the skin.

I mean just go on and on from top to bottom; you can pick out all these features — none of which ever show up in that in a a cheap, off-the-shelf costume.”

Costume manufacturer Philip Morris claimed just that in this video. He gave talks about how he sold Patterson the suit worn in the film.

But the most relevant proof of Bigfoot’s existence for some serious researchers isn’t easily captured on film; it’s what the Sasquatch leaves behind.

Cliff Barackman has one of the largest collections of Sasquatch footprints in the world. (You might recognize Cliff as the co-host of Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot).

He’s seen a lot of fake prints, but says the Patterson-Gimlin ones aren’t so easily dismissed.

Cliff Barackman, Animal Planet: “The trailing leg of the creature also shows the flexibility in the mid-part of the foot: there are a few frames there where we see Patty take her heel off the ground — but yet keep the entire forefoot in touch with the ground.”

Along with the footage of Patty was a clear track of footprints.

Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State University: “One of them showed a very distinct pressure now crush off that comes about as a result of the very flexible mid-foot.” This distinct characteristic is a smoking gun for Jeff. He’s seen that pressure rage in foot samples across decades and continents. But both Jeff and Cliff admit that until there’s a body, then the film and all the research will be up for debate.

If it’s a guy in a suit, the Patterson-Gimlin Film is one of the great hoaxes of all time. If it’s not, the film would completely upend everything we understand about apes and evolution.

Either way, the Patterson-Gimlin Film turned Northwest local legend into a global icon.

And it’s endured because it reminds us there are some things in the world we can never know for sure.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Questions

Head. In the video, in 1967, three women went fishing in a lake and caught a fish. True or false?

Face. Did Bigfoot become famous because of Facebook and Instagram?

Hair. Does everyone think the Bigfoot film is fake, real, or do some think it’s fake, others think it’s real, others are undecided?

Shoulder. What do biology students think about the Bigfoot film? What do they say?

Chest. The Bigfoot footprint cast are simple impressions on the ground. Is this right or wrong? Are they simple footprints (made from a mold) or does it have a complicated shape?

Body. After over 50 years, do scientists and experts fully believe the Bigfoot film is genuine?

Stomach. Only people in northern California know about Bigfoot or the Bigfoot legend. Is this correct or incorrect?
 
 
 

Back. My friends and I have heard of Bigfoot. Yes or no?

Arm, Elbow. What do you think about the Bigfoot film and stories about Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot real or is it just a legend or a bear?

Hand, Fingers, Thumb. There are mysterious creatures in my country. Or there are legends of creatures in our folklore. True or false?

Leg, Knee. What would happen if Bigfoot is tamed, domesticated or befriends humans?

Foot, Feet, Toes. Will Bigfoot remain a mystery forever? What might happen in the future?

Hips. What should people do?