Bigfoot, Patterson video, and reported cases. I got a question.?

Question

Most reports of bigfoot sightings are described as a brownish, reddish brown and even light brown in color. Yet the Patterson video, back in the late 60's show a bigfoot covered in all black hair. Does this make you wonder? Why is a large percentage of sightings conflict with the description on the video?

Answer 1

I'm not a bigfoot believer, but consider this.  Are all people the same color?  Are all bears the same color?  Are all dogs, cats, cows, pigs, horses, etc. the same color?

Answer 2

Well here is a bigger mystery for you. How come we know about these creatures, but we can not get a clear video of them? We have never found a dead body? What about fur samples? bones? droppings? anything?

Doesn't it seem odd that our paths never cross with these creatures, except for some very questionable witnesses and videos?

I am fairly comfortable in calling the Bigfoot video and sightings a hoax. And I, like TR, recall watching something about the guy with the bigfoot costume admitting to the patterson video being a hoax some time back, but I cant recall where I saw it, sorry.

Answer 3

The Patterson video is old and sometimes cleaned up for television, that is why the color seems to be black.

There was an older gentleman who owned a costume shop who claimed to have rented the costume out to Patterson and some other guys - that part was on the television special mentioned.

Answer 4

Here's one explanation:

They're all hoaxes because Bigfoot doesn't exist.

I don't say that to be glib.  I am serious.

Answer 5

You are correct, bigfoot is most often described as brown or redish brown as you suggested; however, typically young ones are described as having black hair and light skin.  As they get older, the reports indicate that they are more commonly described with brownish hair and darker skin (in the few places where it is exposed.  There are even reports of white ones which seem to be very old ones.  I have studied the Patterson film more often than I care to admit.  In my opinion Patty (the film subject) is generally consistent with some reports of a young female but you are right that she is somewhat unusual.  Her feet show a double ball which is also somewhat unusal though typical of the Bluff Creek area.

Answer 6

The latest news I've seen on the Patterson film is that the fellow Patterson hired to wear the bigfoot suit came out and admitted it was a hoax. I think I saw this on Discovery Channel or National Geographic. It can't be proven without a doubt that he's telling the truth, though he did pass a polygraph test, but it certainly casts even more doubt on this famous but highly debatable video clip.

Regarding the color of the fur, I don't see that as being too critical to the legitimacy of the clip. As far as I know, primates (such as monkeys) can exhibit a range of colors within one species.

Answer 7

A while ago, there was a program caledd X-Creatures. X-Creatures was a wildlife documentary series made by the BBC's (British Broadcasting Corporation) Natural History Unit. In this program the BBC sought to debunk the Patterson footage by recreating the "hoax."

(If you wish to see the difference between the real bigfoot and the hollowood one, visit the link)

In order to have the most exacting re-enactment possible, the BBC hired the best monster costume designer in Hollywood and even took the costume to the same location where the Patterson incident occurred in Northern California.

The difference of the fur color may not have been so apparent to the designers until they took their costume on location and out into the bright mountain sunlight.

The Patterson figure has a mix of shiny dark fur with reddish auburn undertones. The fur colors and reflectivity change slightly as the fur moves in bright sunlight. The reddish undertones are not very pronounced in the frame 352 image.

The BBC's costume designers in Hollywood used artificial fur with a reddish tint to simulate the reddish tones seen in the footage. While developing the costume, the chief designer said the Patterson creature's fur looks like "the typical cheap fake fur they used in the '60's." So that's what he used.

The images of the realbigfoot and that of the hollywood fake show how that "typical fake fur from the 60's" doesn't create the same kind of reflective sheen, or change color much as the fur moves in the sunlight.

The Patterson figure's skeletal proportions can now be measured by computer. Positions of the joints can be determined from the rotation of the joints, and then modeled into a moving 3D skeletal frame.

Although on the surface the Patterson figure looks more or less human in terms of the skeletal proportions, computer modeling demonstrates that the figure has a non-human frame.

Answer 8

Claiming one pulled off a hoax is even easier than actually going through the trouble of pulling off the hoax. Why people who claim to pull off hoaxes are always believed lock, stock, and barrel by skeptics is actually pretty amusing. Must give the hoaxers a big kick knowing that the people who fall for their confessions without any doubts are the people who think they are being the most skeptical and logical. Now I have serious doubts about the reality of bigfoot, but not because some folks claim they made the Patterson film decades later. It is an amusing story but proves nothing.

No, it doesn't make me wonder, because I think most bigfoot sightings are hoaxes or misidentification. So examining the "database" of bigfoot sightings is pointless, it's totally corrupted with bad data with no way to sort out the good data assuming there even is any.

Answer 9

TR is quite right the patterson footage was shown to be a hoax I watched the same show as TR the a amn came forward and reported that he was hired by patterson to put the suit on and be filmed he took the polygraph and passed he replicated the walk and it was the very same but just because I have not seen one does not mean I am going to say they do not exist there are to many reports of something