Patterson Film Stabilized

It would really be exciting if Bigfoot were real.

However, if there were actually physical creatures like the one in the film casually galumphing around the woods like that someone would have found some kind of evidence by now. Some fur. Some hair. Some DNA. A bone. Anything. Or evidence of where they sleep/stay. Or what they are eating. A male gorilla eats as much as 40 pounds of vegetation a day. There would have to be evidence of that someone would have found by now. Same if they were killing animals.

a reply to: DelMarvel

people have actually found/reported nearly all of the above. seeing multiple bigfoot at once traveling together. hair, fur, even supposed burial mounds and shelters, markers of territory etc. that's not to mention tracks and footprints, pictures, trails cams and videos.

there was one guy who even put about 50 nails through a board facing up on his porch at his cabin because he kept getting harassed. he came back after taking a break at the cabin because of the activity to find blood and hair on the nails on the board he used. but, because it was left out to the elements for so long i think it came up as contaminated samples.

as far as eating, people have also reported encounters of bigfoot coming onto their farms and stealing chickens from their pens, killing their dogs/ other wildlife.

it really a matter of how much research you do with people who have had encounters. since again there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of encounters and sightings across the world people have had the entire spectrum of experiences.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: DelMarvel

people have actually found/reported nearly all of the above. seeing multiple bigfoot at once traveling together. hair, fur, even supposed burial mounds and shelters, markers of territory etc. that's not to mention tracks and footprints, pictures, trails cams and videos.

there was one guy who even put about 50 nails through a board facing up on his porch at his cabin because he kept getting harassed. he came back after taking a break at the cabin because of the activity to find blood and hair on the nails on the board he used. but, because it was left out to the elements for so long i think it came up as contaminated samples.

as far as eating, people have also reported encounters of bigfoot coming onto their farms and stealing chickens from their pens, killing their dogs/ other wildlife.

it really a matter of how much research you do with people who have had encounters. since again there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of encounters and sightings across the world people have had the entire spectrum of experiences.

All of those encounters and yet no clear film. Pretty odd, considering that this film supposedly shows the real deal in 1967. And no the nails on the board did not turn up contaminated...they turned up as bear. Eye witness reports are nice, but fifty years of them with no pic? Come on, man. You gotta side with the obvious mis-identification/hoax/justplaincrazy angle at this point, don't you think?

originally posted by: DelMarvel
It would really be exciting if Bigfoot were real.

However, if there were actually physical creatures like the one in the film casually galumphing around the woods like that someone would have found some kind of evidence by now. Some fur. Some hair. Some DNA. A bone. Anything. Or evidence of where they sleep/stay. Or what they are eating. A male gorilla eats as much as 40 pounds of vegetation a day. There would have to be evidence of that someone would have found by now. Same if they were killing animals.

Exactly. The reality of the day-to-day needs of a reproducing population of large bipedal hominids in North America would be plain as day. They would have to eat, poop, get injured and sick, and die. We would have found some tangible piece of proof by now. But we haven't. No body. No DNA. No poop. I mean think of that for a second, ok? Supposedly there are enough seven to nine foot tall hairy bipeds in America to keep a thriving population, but we have never found so much as one single solitary turd. Really? That does not at all set off bells for people that gee, along these tracks AT SOME POINT we should have found at least one single solitary turd. But we haven't. There are really only two explanations as to why. Explanation one is that the BF do not exist. That explains an awful lot. The other explanation? I guess it's that they bury ALL of their poop or something? To which I say...come on, man. Really? I would love to believe that BF is real, but I think in the year 2015 we can actually say that in the case of BF, absence of evidence is evidence the creature itself is absent. Would I gladly eat crow if we caught a live Sasquatch tomorrow? Of course I would, how amazing would that be?! But I'm not going to be getting that bib ready anytime soon, lol...

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Wait... He claims that is the actual suit? Can that claim be confirmed? Because if so, case closed. That looks nothing like the "thing" in the film... just look at the blown up picture...

a reply to: jaffo

Exactly. The reality of the day-to-day needs of a reproducing population of large bipedal hominids in North America would be plain as day. They would have to eat, poop, get injured and sick, and die. We would have found some tangible piece of proof by now. But we haven't. No body. No DNA. No poop. I mean think of that for a second, ok? Supposedly there are enough seven to nine foot tall hairy bipeds in America to keep a thriving population, but we have never found so much as one single solitary turd.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes these beings are unintelligent and more ape like. It also overlooks just how much unpopulated forest covers North America. It's not out of the realm of possibility that such a creature could remain undetected if it's intelligent enough to stick to completely unpopulated areas. They might even bury their dead for all we know (hypothetically speaking).

It's possible that the majority of sightings are misidentifications of bears, but I think to label the entire phenomenon a hoax is short sighted. At bare minimum it deserves further investigation.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
There's a really good show on Netflix right now, something like the Truth about Bigfoot, not sure the title but search bigfoot on there. It really examines that Patterson video, the best I've seen yet, and pretty much claims the video is real. The way they bring the video back to its original copy enhancement is amazing and it looks real. They also show how at that time, even Hollywoods best makeup artists couldn't have done that. And, they show what it would take for someone to get in that suit and walk consistently throughout like a real ape would walk. Pretty interesting show, check it out.

Okay I just watched the "The Truth Behind: Bigfoot" on Netflix and I have to say they did a thorough job on all fronts. It really did make me rethink whether or not this could actually be real. Watch the TV show and then decide.

Too bad I couldn't find the show on youtube or elsewhere for those that don't have Netflix.

a reply to: Masterjaden

I have to agree with you 100%. I don't claim this video is real, as their is a lot of contradictory evidence to go with it.

However, the claim that people use when it comes to big foot or any similar legend, that as humans we have covered so much of the planet that there is no way we wouldn't have evidence of them is completely ignorant.

Just take Yellowstone National Park as an example. Our oldest national park, and also probably the most well known and visited national park in the world. Yet few people realize how enormous it really is, and that we still don't have it fully mapped/documented. Since the 1990's we have discovered hundreds of waterfalls in Yellowstone, some of them 3-400 ft high!

People think that an intelligent large ape couldn't go undiscovered, but 400 ft high waterfalls in a well known national park could? I don't think so.

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.

The face looks retouched in this. Notice no grain in the face? The resolution is better in the Munns scans, but notice no individual fingers are showing, so I'm guessing this frame had the face retouched. I do retouching every day and it looks reworked in the face.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
[...] there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of encounters and sightings across the world people have had the entire spectrum of experiences.

But what has it all added up to? A lot of curious circumstantial evidence, but still no corpus delecti. I suppose you could say that with all the other evidence a verified Bigfoot body isn't needed... but it is.

a reply to: jaffo

The fact that you think so much of our world has been discovered is extremely ignorant.

Look at Yellowstone National Park as an example. Our oldest national park, and also probably the most well known and visited national park in the world. Yet few people realize how enormous it really is, and that we still don't have it fully mapped/documented. Since the 1990's we have discovered hundreds of waterfalls in Yellowstone, some of them 3-400 ft high.

The largest cave in the world was only recently discovered in Vietnam. It has caverns so big that they could fit entire city streets and skyscrapers in them.

How about the Bili ape that was first seen by scientists in 2003? It was only a legend until then and this is an ape that is bigger than a man when it walks upright.

So who is the ignorant one here? It doesn't matter whether or not this film is real. Your claim that BF isn't real because it is 2015 is just plain stupid.

a reply to: jaffo

I get it jaffo,I am not being combative either,just throwing a rebuttal out there.

I've searched everywhere for a full video of the recreation by P. Morris and Bob,but have come up empty.If anyone knows where one is,I'd love to see it.It could potentially make or break the P/G film.

There was another fella by the name of Leroy Blevins who also tried to replicate the P/G film.It took him 10 years and alot of cash to build one(suit)and although its pretty close it does not hold up either.I'll see if I can dig up a photo.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

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.

The face looks retouched in this. Notice no grain in the face? The resolution is better in the Munns scans, but notice no individual fingers are showing, so I'm guessing this frame had the face retouched. I do retouching every day and it looks reworked in the face.

That is entirely possible pixelpusher.I grabbed it off the net and don't know the story.I think it may be MK Davis,but I am unsure.

Great point though.Starred your post.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

And don't forget that waterfalls don't typically move around to try and avoid detection from predators or prey...

Jaden

I heard this again while working on Gorillas in the Mist at Rick Baker's [studio]. We had just pulled out the old Harry and the Hendersons r/c [radio controlled] head and were talking about "real" Bigfoot sightings. I mentioned the Patterson film and Rick responded, "You know that's a guy in a suit. John Chambers built that around the time of Planet of the Apes." It was common knowledge in the shop from around the time that they were building the "Harry" suits for Harry and the Hendersons.

Source

Read through the article (link above). Rick Baker is probably the best person to judge the suit or ape question. Apparently, at some point he was told or found out the suit was made by makeup artist John Chambers of the Planet of Apes fame. Baker had a relationship with Chambers, so maybe Chambers revealed the story to Rick Baker personally.

Leroy Blevins "Patty" suit

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Makeup artist Rick Baker said in 1987 that the Patterson film was of "a guy in a suit," going on to tell his crew that "John Chambers built that around the time of Planet of the Apes." (Baker now says that he no longer believes that this is true.)

Follow up investigation

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Makeup artist Rick Baker said in 1987 that the Patterson film was of "a guy in a suit," going on to tell his crew that "John Chambers built that around the time of Planet of the Apes." (Baker now says that he no longer believes that this is true.)

Follow up investigation

Your link to an article reveals that John Landis found out that John Chambers did make the suit!? Interesting. Landis also goes on to say he thought the suit was also used in a David Wolper Production, but it didn't say what Wolper film. Anyone know which film Wolper used it in?

The article ends with your quote about Baker no longer believing it was true. What wasn't true? The suit story of the film being true? The author doesn't say. We need first hand testimony from Rick Baker. I may try to tech out to him myself and see if he answers.

Just to be clear,I am not trying to sway folks into believing the P/G film is real.I have read ALOT about it and watched it over and over again.

I am only trying to show people why I believe it is real,and I didn't always believe that.I started believing when this stabilized version came to light.It just looks and feels real to me.

I respect everyone's opinion on why they think its real,or think its a suit.If the people that think it is a suit post a reason why they think that,I try and post something that makes me think it isn't. That's all.

Well these articles tend to deal with second hand stories and supposed quotes from people like Landis and Baker. I'd feel better if there was a video interview because people claim this stuff all the time. The article quotes may or may not be real. I have to say I'm interested enough to try to get Rick Baker to respond to this.