Patterson Film Stabilized

I keep thinking about this and another issue is that this film shows bigfoot out in the open, in broad daylight and not apparently concerned about getting out of sight even though it turns and sees the humans.

Yet in a half century we have no other images anything like this despite all the deforestation and development, more and more people in the nation, more people spending more time in wilderness areas along with the advent of personal video cameras and now cell phones. It just doesn't add up.

Just a question to "just a dude in a suit" crowd:

How many times have you witnessed a live primate in the wild and how many times have you witnessed costumed individuals in the wild to be able to make such a rapid distinction?

On top of that, the claim those who do not hold the same opinion are (fill in the blank with a derogatory statement). Logical fallacy.

At least most willing to look at the possibility of it being genuine are putting some analysis forward.

It could very well be just a dude in a suit but to simply claim such on the basis of your expert examination of a few seconds of inconclusive evidence is ridiculous.

a reply to: Xaphan

You're right. It was completely debunked.

Does that matter to people who want it to be true? Absolutely not. If it makes life less mundane, people want to believe it.

I think you might be afraid it isn't a man in a suit. And guess what, it isn't.
And I could give a crap whether it is or not.

a reply to: crazyeddie68
Blow up from film
Have to say I was heavily leaning toward a suit until I saw the blow up pic, wow.. that face. Looks like some advanced makeup.

Iam not saying it's Bigfoot but it's...

So I live in Washington and work with a guy that has known the family and he said that they have not really kept it a secret that it was faked with the locals there...

I'm not saying this to debate it, but to ask if others have heard the same thing.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You put your mind to it anyone can pass a lie detector test. It's all about whether you're nervous.

Apparently one of the easiest ways to pass the test is to flex your sphincter muscle and loosen it when you want to tell a lie. Nearly impossible to detect.

Asked me any question and in my head I would just ask myself "is my name joe" (which is not) I would then answer my question with a verbal no, and so the other question asked me would get a honest no answer...

technology changin' the game

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You put your mind to it anyone can pass a lie detector test. It's all about whether you're nervous.

Apparently one of the easiest ways to pass the test is to flex your sphincter muscle and loosen it when you want to tell a lie. Nearly impossible to detect.

I worked somewhere many years ago where someone was stealing big time. All the employees and the manager knew who it was, she wouldn't do anything. Finally, the corporation came in and gave everyone lie detector tests. The thief passed and they fired someone who was completely innocent. I'll never take one of those again.

a reply to: Blue Shift

And what does the rigme mean?

a reply to: crazyeddie68
That is strange, I don't thiink people can walk that way...

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: QueenofWeird

You see the toes come up in F308-F310.

nice, this is the first i've seen this one too. like deadseraph mentioned you can clearly see the toes moving independently of the rest of the foot. the way the feet move and the fact that this thing has breasts, i mean c'mon, has ANYONE, EVER seen an "ape" costume with breasts on it and from that specific time period to boot. i've never even seen a primate costume with breasts in a movie, tv show or anywhere else for that matter. and to me it's just one of those small details that matters.

and not for nothing but here is the guy who claimed to have made the suit, with the "actual suit" used in the patterson video.



yea.....that looks the same...totally. oh wait, no it doesn't, not at all actually.

you'd figure this guy had 50 years to make a suit to match the video he'd at least get it right. the patterson creature is 100% covered in hair except small parts on the face. doesn't have a stupid hairless belly patch and a hairless space about the breasts. LOL

what a shyster!

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

I'm a skeptic where Bigfoot evidence is concerned, but I desperately want Bigfoot to be real. That being said, this is just my opinion of the person in your posts opinion, and not meant to be combative in any way.

When I look at the film of the feet, what I immediately noticed were the soles. Mostly, the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet are colourless in contrast to other parts of the body, but not in all primates or monkeys, if this is true in a Bigfoot is unable to be said, as no one has ever studied one.

My issue is that the soles are so clean looking. If you're u were walking around in the woods all day, wouldn't the soles of your feet show some signs of being mud covered, or dirt covered?

By my eyes, the soles of the feet almost look like they could be the soles of a shoe or boot. I always thought the Patterson film might be legitimate, and it's obvious that the suit brought to light by the man claiming to have been in the film is obviously not a match to the one in the video, but after seeing this stabilization and especially the zoom in of the foot, I'm no longer convinced. The face of the Bigfoot looks exceptionally lifeless.

a reply to: Atsbhct

i understand what you're saying and i appreciate you bringing your points about in a very rational way.

it's hard to say about the color of the bottom of the feet. it might be easier to tell with a better blow up of the film. i think that the soles do have a dusty kind of look. I know the film also could probably stand to be color corrected.

a lot of primates do have that kinda grey bottom of the foot look and unless it were REALLY rainy and muddy out then i would maybe expect the bottom of the foot to be more brown or obviously crusted with mud/dirt.

but, the landscape in the video looks pretty dry with rocks and dirt.

the thing is i've looked up a ton of ape/monkey photos and in everyone they have that grey look to the bottom of the hands/feet even when they have been clearly walking in dirt/mud/rain forest etc. so i don't personally look at the coloration as something that is off it seems odd but try finding a picture or video with a severely brown monkey/ape foot. i think maybe you're thinking of it too much in terms of a human foot? and how a human foot would appear/react in a landscape like that without socks/footwear?

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yeah...that would be tough to pull off if it is a suit.

Munns has a few videos on you tube that are a must watch for anyone interested in the P/G film.

Right. Clearly the technology to leave him barefoot and paint the feet of the guy in the suit did not exist when this film was created.

originally posted by: kronos11
a reply to: crazyeddie68
Blow up from film

Have to say I was heavily leaning toward a suit until I saw the blow up pic, wow.. that face. Looks like some advanced makeup.

When I look at the face, I see a clear costume helmet with holes for the eyes and the skin of the wearer painted black to blend in. Looks like a fur and rubber hood almost, pulled over the head.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: QueenofWeird

You see the toes come up in F308-F310.

nice, this is the first i've seen this one too. like deadseraph mentioned you can clearly see the toes moving independently of the rest of the foot. the way the feet move and the fact that this thing has breasts, i mean c'mon, has ANYONE, EVER seen an "ape" costume with breasts on it and from that specific time period to boot. i've never even seen a primate costume with breasts in a movie, tv show or anywhere else for that matter. and to me it's just one of those small details that matters.

and not for nothing but here is the guy who claimed to have made the suit, with the "actual suit" used in the patterson video.

yea.....that looks the same...totally. oh wait, no it doesn't, not at all actually.

you'd figure this guy had 50 years to make a suit to match the video he'd at least get it right. the patterson creature is 100% covered in hair except small parts on the face. doesn't have a stupid hairless belly patch and a hairless space about the breasts. LOL

what a shyster!

Wow. After looking at that, it really does match almost exactly what I thought it was.

a reply to: jaffo

Bob Heironimus walking in a bigfoot suitYou folks be the judge...In my eyes its WAY off.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

I'm a skeptic where Bigfoot evidence is concerned, but I desperately want Bigfoot to be real. That being said, this is just my opinion of the person in your posts opinion, and not meant to be combative in any way.

When I look at the film of the feet, what I immediately noticed were the soles. Mostly, the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet are colourless in contrast to other parts of the body, but not in all primates or monkeys, if this is true in a Bigfoot is unable to be said, as no one has ever studied one.

My issue is that the soles are so clean looking. If you're u were walking around in the woods all day, wouldn't the soles of your feet show some signs of being mud covered, or dirt covered?

By my eyes, the soles of the feet almost look like they could be the soles of a shoe or boot. I always thought the Patterson film might be legitimate, and it's obvious that the suit brought to light by the man claiming to have been in the film is obviously not a match to the one in the video, but after seeing this stabilization and especially the zoom in of the foot, I'm no longer convinced. The face of the Bigfoot looks exceptionally lifeless.

I have read somewhere that the color of the feet are due to the sand at Bluff Creek.I really don't know if this is true or not,maybe someone familiar with the area can verify if there is indeed sand there.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: jaffo

Bob Heironimus walking in a bigfoot suit

You folks be the judge...In my eyes its WAY off.

I'm not trying to be combative about it, but the video provided really does not have enough information to compare them, really. It is only three or four still frames and it is taken from a different angle and different distance at a different setting and under different lighting.