Patterson Film Stabilized

I would so very much like to believe in a cryptozoological Bigfoot.

But with the technology and reach of humanity on this continent today I just can't see how a wild mammal of that size could still remain hidden.

a reply to: DelMarvel

it doesn't really remain THAT hidden. Elusive yes. But, there have been literally hundreds upon hundreds of sightings that go back hundreds of years to the earliest native american cultures. not to mention in china, tibet, russia etc etc

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: DelMarvel

you mean this lost in space...

seems like some legit effects lol

i mean c'mon even planet of the apes had terrible costumes and that was a major hollywood production.

it's impossible to find ANY costume from that era that would remotely convincing and with breasts to boot. not to mention as was previously stated the type of stretch fur that would have to of been used to produce the hair/skin directly and thinly over muscle effect did not exist the year the film was made.

not a man in a suit.

I've seen some attempts to recreate the P/G film that were pretty sad to say the least.Even today(besides CGI)It would be tough to replicate that "suit".

The thigh and calf muscles are very defined.A good way to spot a suit is by looking at the calf muscles,or lack of.

a reply to: crazyeddie68

nice. i've heard researchers say that if you look at the actual film stills and magnify the originals that the detail is astounding in regards to the skin, muscle etc. the films being seen by most people are copies of copies etc. so a lot of the original detail is lost. but, even with that being so, like you said, the muscle definition is still VERY present.

originally posted by: muse7
If this is indeed a human in an ape suit, he must have a huge wingspan since those arms almost reach his knees

Unless the hoaxer already thought of that aspect and had false hands attached to the ends of the suit arms.

If you're gonna go to the effort and trouble of walking around the woods in what must be a hot and cumbersome ape suit, it wouldn't be any more trouble to have to hold on to a couple of false hands too.

This looks like a man in a suit.

I see a head swivel as well before the body itself turns. Well, I think I'm probably getting off the Sasquatch train. We all have to grow up sometime.

originally posted by: TheOneElectric
This looks like a man in a suit.

I see a head swivel as well before the body itself turns. Well, I think I'm probably getting off the Sasquatch train. We all have to grow up sometime.

there are obvious differences in biology that have been previously addressed in this thread that prevent the subject in the patterson film from being a human. one of which is the mid-tarsal break present in the subjects foot. something a regular human foot is NOT capable of. so unless the man in the suit broke both his feet before struting around the forest in an immaculate costume better than anything hollywood produced during that era & sporting jiggling breasts then no, it is not a person.



regardless of the fact that the patterson film is but one sighting out of literally hundreds upon hundreds. it's easy to dismiss something as being fake. but, if one takes the time to do research and listen to just some of those hundreds possibly even thousands of people. you see there is a trend. that there is SOMETHING in our national forests and in other places all over the world that point to bigfoot being a legitimate cryptid.

it may look like a man in a suit but, that is because what we're seeing is essentially a hominid covered in thick fur. so yeah, it looks like a man in a suit of fur, but upon deeper analysis there are important details that can't be brushed aside that preclude that possibility.


also odd that of all the "fakes" & "hoaxes" that none of them seem to occur in parts of country with very little to no rain fall or patches of forest. the exact opposite type of environment that one would expect a creature of this nature to reside. i would imagine if every single bigfoot sighting were hoaxed or perpetrated by liars that those hoaxes would occur EVERYWHERE across the continental united states regardless of environment.



clusters of missing 411 disappearances all unsolved, all with the same MO, stretching all the way back to the 1800's



bigfoot sightings over-layed with average rainfall levels. with an obvious correlation.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: crazyeddie68

nice. i've heard researchers say that if you look at the actual film stills and magnify the originals that the detail is astounding in regards to the skin, muscle etc. the films being seen by most people are copies of copies etc. so a lot of the original detail is lost. but, even with that being so, like you said, the muscle definition is still VERY present.

Yup...and to think that is a suit,in 1967?

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: crazyeddie68

nice. i've heard researchers say that if you look at the actual film stills and magnify the originals that the detail is astounding in regards to the skin, muscle etc. the films being seen by most people are copies of copies etc. so a lot of the original detail is lost. but, even with that being so, like you said, the muscle definition is still VERY present.

Yup...and to think that is a suit,in 1967?

it's honestly the MOST incredibly lazy rebuttal one could offer as it has absolutely no substance behind it and it ignores a whole slew of information that addresses how it's NOT a suit. might as well say, "nope, its probably a puppet"

a reply to: TheOneElectric

There are a few members here that have seen these creatures in the flesh...are they supposed to dismiss what they saw with their own eyes in order to "grow up?"

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: TheOneElectric

There are a few members here that have seen these creatures in the flesh...are they supposed to dismiss what they saw with their own eyes in order to "grow up?"

exactly. "grow up" in that context essentially means "accept and conform to the hive-mind mentality" and "blindly accept what others blindly accept or risk ridicule for not having a closed mind"

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: DelMarvel

you mean this lost in space...

seems like some legit effects lol

No, not that episode. I guess you didn't look at the article. The suggestion was that it might have been used in the "'The Space Croppers" episode.

a reply to: DelMarvel

my apologies, i know which episode you're talking about, i've seen the suit in that one. it's a full primate suit with dark, black fur/hair head to toe. i realize now that was probably confusing.

i was just using the picture as a representation of the era of special effects from the same show. that picture is an example of how "convincing" the special effects from that era were. but again, the concept of a suit has been thoroughly dismissed due to several factors.

edit



was actually able to get a screenshot of it from the exact episode.

not that much more convincing at all really....

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Funny how that show seemed so frightening to me as a kid!

Yeah, I readily admit I don't know the history of this "suit" debate. I just thought that was an interesting article with all the interviews of special effect experts and the references to classic TV.

The Patterson film never excited me as it always looked to me like a man in a suit but I've never really researched it the way you guys have.

a reply to: DelMarvel

yeah seriously! it's crazy in retrospect how something so hokey now could have been so completely terrifying as a child. i guess it's part imagination or suspension of disbelief but, it was every bit as nail biting and nightmare inducing as The Twilight Zone for me.

But, yeah, I appreciate the responses. The suit debate has been going on for so long now that it's insanely deep with points, counter-points and details from both sides.

There is just no way that is a man in a suit. I implore the skeptics to look over the previously presented analyses' and look at this rationally. This film isthebest evidence of bigfoot to date.

originally posted by: St Udio
is it a suit that is put on----- or is it a costume make up par-excellence

i'm just thinking about the TV make-up artists competing with a new project every show and what is accomplished in just a few hours.
a team of TWO makeup artists could glue on fur, muscle, etc. that would make it look more real than a 50 pound suit

the subject would have probably shaved his body ~~~~OUCH !
except perhaps the groin/bikini area which was likely a fur speedo blended to the body hair we see in the video

They didn't have any of those things back when this footage was shot.

I have heard a few expert filmakers and special effects artists say this could not be a suit because of careful observation of movement, and many other characteristics of this creature in motion.

There are hundreds of little details about this footage that leads me to conclude it is a real creature walking, including the extra long arms and the breasts that weren't known about until enhancement technology became available a long time later.

originally posted by: Goldcurrent
This film is the best evidence of bigfoot to date.

It is also, in a sense, the only bigfoot evidence to date (that is widely known and studied).
Made by an individual whose acquaintances pretty well describe as a liar and con man.
Renting a movie camera and scouting a location specifically to shoot a fictional movie about bigfoot.
And coincidentally encountering a bigfoot on his very first trip to the area for that purpose.
Which was also an area where a well-known and exposed bigfoot hoaxer, Ray Wallace, also operated (Patterson and Wallace met twice according to the former's account).

Forget hunting bigfoot, he should have been playing the lottery with luck like that.

a reply to: Dapaga

Making something like this would be easy.. It's an ape suit not a space suit!