◆ PARALLAX

I want to do this carefully because it keeps coming up and people just yell past each other. The Patterson-Gimlin film is from 1967. The costume claim is the most common skeptical explanation. Let's go through the specific claims that a human in a suit would have to explain, honestly, and see where we land.

1) THE GAIT. The creature walks with a bent-knee posture the whole time. Human walkers don't naturally do this unless injured. Most reconstructions of "a man in a suit" put the costumed person in an upright gait. Does a suit force you to walk bent? The film shows the foot plants clearly. Is that a biomechanical problem for a biped in a costume, or is it just how this particular walker moved?

2) ARM TO LEG RATIO. The arms are long relative to torso. Proportionally closer to an ape. A human actor in a suit -- those are still human limbs inside. Do the proportions look proportionate to a human arm, just furred? Or do they look longer than they should for a human body?

3) THE MUSCLE MOVEMENT. This is the one I hear most. The buttocks, thigh, and shoulder muscles move in the film with what looks like independent, fluid contraction. Not just a suit moving over a human frame. Can you fake that in 1967? With what materials?

4) BREASTS AND SAGITTAL CREST. The creature shows what look like breast tissue. If that's a man, why would a hoaxer add breasts? The back of the head shows a high crest. Again, if you're faking this, why that specific anatomical choice?

5) 1967 COSTUME TECHNOLOGY. What would you actually use? Rubber? Latex? How do you make arms move like that? How do you hide the actor's proportions that much?

I am not saying these prove a real creature. I am saying: if you claim it's a suit, you have to answer these specifically. And if you claim it's real, you have to answer why a hoaxer couldn't get some of this right by accident or by decent craftsmanship. Let's actually talk about it.

Good thread. I lean toward "real" but I'll take the costume claim seriously because greyfox is asking fairly.

The limb proportions are the strongest point for the real-creature side. That is genuinely hard to fake with a human body inside. Even with padding, your human proportions show. The arm-to-leg ratio in the film doesn't match a human in bulky costume; the arms are too long and the legs too short relative to torso.

The gait is the second strongest point. That bent-knee walk is consistent. A human in a suit, especially in 1967, would tend to revert to an upright stride because that's how you move. The costumed person in this film never straightens up. That takes training or actual skeletal structure.

But I will concede that the film alone does not prove a species. Clever hoax? Possible. A real film of something? Also possible. The film is good evidence for discussion, not proof. We need more than this.

The film is suggestive. That is all. And here is why I stay skeptical despite finding it genuinely interesting:

1) Chain of custody. Patterson and Gimlin are the only sources. They had motive (fame, money from footage). No independent film. No second camera angle. They captured the only footage of the only sighting they were on.

2) No body. Ever. In 1967 or since. You find the film; you find a real animal in your area; you come back with a body or a skeleton or a hair sample that tests conclusive. This is 1967. Tranquilizer guns exist. Traps exist. Rifles exist. If there is a breeding population of large primates in the Pacific Northwest, where is the physical evidence? One skeleton. One jaw. One teeth. 1967 to now. Nothing conclusive.

3) The film is technically impressive, yes. But it is also exactly the evidence that a clever hoaxer would produce. One short film. Good cinematography. Ambiguous enough to argue forever. No way to definitively test it because there is no specimen. The film outlives the falsifiability.

I am not calling Patterson and Gimlin liars necessarily. But the evidentiary bar is higher than "the film looks good to me."

Dana is right on the chain of custody point. One film from two interested parties is weak. Doesn't matter how good the film looks.

What would falsify the Patterson-Gimlin footage? If someone came forward with the costume, we would know. If someone with knowledge of the hoax came forward, we would know. If a body was found, we would know. If other film footage emerged, it would strengthen the claim. None of that has happened. The film just sits there, ambiguous, undisprovable.

The costume claim is equally unprovable from this end. Nobody proved it was a costume. Patterson and Gimlin never admitted it. No costume was ever found. So we are left with: one film, two possible explanations, neither provable from the evidence we have.

That is not a high bar for skepticism. That is basic epistemology. The creature in the film might be real. The film might be a hoax. But one grainy film from interested parties does not close the case either way. We need more evidence, or we need to stop acting like we know.

I have spent time in the ridges where all this happens. I have tracked a lot of animals. I have also seen what good hunters can fake and what they can make people believe. I am not saying I know what happened in Northern California in 1967. But I will say this: I have never trusted one piece of evidence that convenient.

I respect the film. It is better than most of what gets passed around. But Patterson and Gimlin were looking for this. They had cameras. They found something. The odds that they would be the ones to film definitive proof of a legendary creature strike me as very long. Not impossible. Long.

I believe in things I have seen or tracked myself. A film is not the same as a track. A film is not the same as scat or hair. The film is worth looking at. But it is not reason enough to believe on its own.

I want the boring answer. I do not want there to be Bigfoot. I want the film to be a hoax because it is simpler and it explains why there is no body and no other evidence and no hair samples that test to a new species.

But treeshadow being honest: a convincing suit in 1967 would have been very hard. Latex technology was not what it is now. You would need a master craftsman. You would need materials that did not exist off-the-shelf. You would need an actor who could hold that gait and those proportions for a full shot without breaking character. It is possible. But it cuts both ways. It makes the hoax harder, which makes me lean skeptical. But it also means "just a costume" is not the easy explanation, so people cannot just wave it away.

The boring answer might still be the hoax. But the hoax would have required skill and planning and luck. Not nothing.

Here is what I notice: the Patterson-Gimlin film became an icon. The image of that walk, that creature, that is now the visual reference for Bigfoot everywhere. Movies, books, posters. The film became the evidence instead of the thing being filmed.

This happens in folklore. The image outlives the source. Whether or not something happened in 1967, the film became true in the culture. Everyone knows the walk. Everyone knows what Bigfoot "looks like" because of this film. The evidence and the icon merged.

From a historical point of view, it does not matter if Patterson and Gimlin hoaxed or filmed a real creature. What matters is that they created the image that defines the entire subject. The film is successful mythology. That is true regardless of the hoax/real divide.

As for the actual question -- whether it is a man in a suit -- I think greyfox asked it fairly and everyone answered fairly. No one proved anything. That is because the evidence does not allow proof. And so the image survives, undecided, useful to anyone who wants to believe or disbelieve. Which is its real power.

the way the MUSCLES move you CANT fake that in 1967