Great Bigfoot video analysis on the Mission BF

In July last year 2013, a video surfaced showing what looks like another Bigfoot sighting.

A couple were hiking on a logging road above one of the lakes in Mission, BC, when taking photos of the scenic views they spotted something moving. Even though they were a fair distance away they were still able to zoom in enough to see something standing upright.

Perhaps you might remember it. I just found a very interesting analysis someone did of the original video. Something about it caught his eye and he gives a very clear demonstration that what ever was walking around up there, had an ability that no other human has. I'll let you be the judge.


The original Mission video:

Thinker Thunker is a very entertaining guy. And even when I'm not sure I agree with him, I really enjoy watching him make his case.

There so few people in the paranormal fields who have a sense of humor. Especially about themselves. So that in and of itself is refreshing about Thinker Thunker.

And amongst all that good stuff, he also makes some interesting points.

So has anyone gone back to that site and looked for big foot hair strands?

If any were found it would surely validate the video with some credibility.

a reply to: FlySolo


that was really interesting.....the tape isn't real clear but is enough to see the biomechanics...and his testing of it was very simple.....that was no human for sure.....is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million dollar man etc etc

he pointed out, that every one of them have longer fur around the neck and the waist to hide to 2 parts of the costume that are separate.....I was looking for that but the video is not that clear.

now the patterson film from the 60's that big foot has the SAME length fur at the neck and the waist.

a reply to: research100

That Patterson film is the best historical benchmark for Bigfoot imo. Just google yourself "Bigfoot suit" and compare it to the Patterson BF. They're not very good and the legs give it away. The only way you could ever find something similar today is in Hollywood but not in the 60's.

is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million dollar man etc etc

Not sure who you mean

a reply to: FlySolo I tried doing a search and can't find anything...I heard about this on a radio show, was probably someone else.....

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: research100

That Patterson film is the best historical benchmark for Bigfoot imo. Just google yourself "Bigfoot suit" and compare it to the Patterson BF. They're not very good and the legs give it away. The only way you could ever find something similar today is in Hollywood but not in the 60's.

In the nineties, Strange Magazine tried to verify the rumors that John Chambers created the suit for the Patterson film. Chambers, of course, is the Hollywood make-up artist famous for creating the ape suits in the original PLANET OF THE APES. And, more recently, he was featured as a character in the film ARGO and was played by John Goodman.

The article suggests it may have been a modified version of a costume Chambers made (uncredited) for "Lost in Space".

The article is unable to find a smoking gun. But it's very well-researched and worth reading if you interested in the "man in a suit hypothesis". I think you can still find the article online.

a reply to: Moresby

Yeah i'm sure all kinds of folk will have something to say to substantiate their suspicions. Blurred lines between rumors and truth all the time. I can look at the article but you know what nails it for me? The anatomical difference and in the legs when striding compared to that of a human. Specifically, the angular degree of the front shin bone. Breasts is the other one. Here, don't take my word for it. Analysis by ThinkerThunker.

a reply to: FlySolo
The walk is completely consistent with a modern human in a costume. I remember an anthropologist explaining to Meldrum that it would be difficult to walk any other way in floppy footwear and there is nothing about this film that couldn't be faked. Meldrum himself agreed (but thinks it's a bigfoot anyway).



The back story to this is shady enough to be comical, no one knows how or when the film was developed, only that it wasn't done the way originally claimed. Gimlin's story changes a lot cover the years also.

What do you do after you get the only film of a really real Bigfoot? Surely you go back to the area ? No, apparently when the money starts rolling in ($200k in first year) you never bother going back to the area...ever.

Though he did go looking for bigfoot in Thailand (lol).


This pic taken at his "ape canyon" camp apparently......as bogus as it gets.

orgoneresearch.com...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Is there video of the guy walking like that? I would like to see how fluid his movements are. Anyone can stand in that position.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Moresby

Yeah i'm sure all kinds of folk will have something to say to substantiate their suspicions. Blurred lines between rumors and truth all the time. I can look at the article but you know what nails it for me? The anatomical difference and in the legs when striding compared to that of a human. Specifically, the angular degree of the front shin bone. Breasts is the other one. Here, don't take my word for it. Analysis by ThinkerThunker.

Here's the STRANGE MAGAZINE article. It's well-written and well-researched. And definitely worth a read.

STRANGE MAGAZINE ARTICLE

As for your point about angles and so on. It's usually the debunkers who bring out the arrows and the protractors. But, whoever brings them out, they make my eyes roll. Lens distortion makes these measurements debatable enough to render then virtually irrelevant.

What's impressive about the Patterson Film is that in the 45+ years since it was shot, it has never been 100% debunked. There are things about it suggestive of a hoax. But there are things that point in the other direction as well.

a reply to: Moresby

It's all very circumstantial. The same could be said of Stanley Kubrick filming the moon landing. Patty was filmed in Oct 1967, the first Planet of the Apes came out in 1968. I find it hard to think Chambers not only created a costume and directed the Patterson film but had time to prepare for Planet of the Apes. Filming took place between May 21–August 10, 1967. It would mean two-months later he would have to return to Cali to do Patty. Then he would have to begin the rest of the 5-part series from 1968-1973. I doubt 2-months is enough time get all the logistics down from the time he's was asked to hoax a BF and to put together a costume and film it. Not only that, but did Chambers include bouncing breasts?

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: FlySolo


that was really interesting.....the tape isn't real clear but is enough to see the biomechanics...and his testing of it was very simple.....that was no human for sure.....is he the same guy that put up all the hollywood pics (chewbacca , harry (bigfoot)from the hendersons, big foot from 6 million dollar man etc etc

he pointed out, that every one of them have longer fur around the neck and the waist to hide to 2 parts of the costume that are separate.....I was looking for that but the video is not that clear.

now the patterson film from the 60's that big foot has the SAME length fur at the neck and the waist.


I found the site with the pics www.isu.edu...

there are 10 pages explaining the differences and how hard it would be to make a costume like in the patterson film, below that are the pictures makes a great point...hollywoods best, with tons of money can't make a costume like the patterson film

another point, if the patterson film is a man in a costume .....the person who made itwould have had an amazing career in hollywood because what was made was so much better than the best in hollywood could make...but they never came forward???? to capitalize on this

Monsanto corporation has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Science can in fact merge genes from one species into another. Cloned sheep, or seeds, or cows milk that produces spiders web. You name it, they can "create" it.

Is this technology new? Some will say, no, its been around thousands of years practiced by past civilizations that choose to conceal themselves from our prying eyes. I most recently read somewhere Bigfoot is actually a combination of Human and Bear DNA. Sounds good to me............

At any rate, the foot that is left behind, to me, looks like it might be the head of another individual sitting as it appears to move about, going into and out of view. It could be a family unit enjoying the sunny day...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I disagree.the costume would be impossible to make in the 60s...even for hollywood.

ETA:Sorry about being off topic O.P.
I also enjoy Thinkerthunkers videos.For the video in question,I think its to far to tell.But the legs do appear to be extremely long,imho.

Did anyone happen to notice that the toes tend to move as he walks. If they were fake feet I doubt they would do that. In the forward part of the steps the toes tend to go up slightly.

Now THAT is interesting.

I'm a tall guy, 76 inches in HT and sometimes just for fun, I like to do weird things and walk crazy and off the ledges, especially getting off an LMTV in full battle Rattle...
Its always a big fail.

What gets me is those Orbs. Orbs have always been associated with BF in some cases.

Damn the unknown is just so interesting. I love it.

S&F, awesome thread!!

originally posted by: Arnie123
Now THAT is interesting.

I'm a tall guy, 76 inches in HT and sometimes just for fun, I like to do weird things and walk crazy and off the ledges, especially getting off an LMTV in full battle Rattle...
Its always a big fail.

You just need to go the Ministry to have that walk of yours developed.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Is there video of the guy walking like that? I would like to see how fluid his movements are. Anyone can stand in that position.

He had his youtube account suspended (too much 'footer hate, amongst other things, it seems). A shame, he had some good stuff. You could just look at Meldrum's own mocumentaries where it is debunked many times, the specialists at Stanford certainly couldn't rule out a man in a costume. Though, in my experience, nothing will convince 'footer enthusiasts anyway.

It is quite amazing to see Meldrum ignore the anthropolgists who tell him the pg subject is a human in proportions, size, locomotion etc (though obviously with a few b grade movie prop incongruities such as a mixture of male/ female features, hairy breasts, sagital crest without accompanying abdomin etc)...then ignore the results of his own experiment where he admitted surprise at how easily a human could mimic the gait...because he just "believes" it's a really real bigfoot.


Then again, Meldrum himself bangs on with the myth about "patty" being over 7' tall, despite knowing full well the source he uses debunked his own claim as wrong, years ago. The only things continually absent from "bigfoot" science are intelectual integrity, real science...oh, and bigfoot.

It's been debunked many times, though most people never believed it anyway due to common sense or they got up and walked like bigfoot themselves (it's easy and you'll impress friends and family with the patty "get back stare"!). It's only a handful of crank scientists their somewhat credulous subculture that cling to this myth. In keeping with pseudo science, where myths remian in perpetuity.

orgoneresearch.com...

lol.
www.youtube.com...

talking about his youtube suspension.
www.youtube.com...

ps. how did this intrepid bigfoot hunter (Patterson) fair on his "Thailand expedition"? lol.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I disagree.the costume would be impossible to make in the 60s...even for hollywood.

www.youtube.com...

There are better ones even from the '30's if you look around for them. They didn't have the benefit of being shaky, blurry and distant either, but had to withstand close ups. Another 'footer myth. Not even sure why anyone thinks the pg film is that good?