Patterson Film Stabilized

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Oh...missed that part,I only skimmed through it.Sorry about that.I'll read it again,and won't jump the gun next time.

I'd love to see the suit if it was used also,I would definitely change my mind.Star for you again pixel,and big apology for jumping the gun.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
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.

This would be a great idea and a great find,To put this to bed once and for all.Like I said...it would change the way I see the P/G film.

If this is indeed a suit,man is it ever a d**n good one.

Cheers thepixelpusher!

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
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.

This would be a great idea and a great find,To put this to bed once and for all.Like I said...it would change the way I see the P/G film.

If this is indeed a suit,man is it ever a d**n good one.

Cheers thepixelpusher!

I'm not sure Rick Baker would settle it since his information would also be second hand and not from the source, unless he admitted to talking directly to John Chambers about this. That article suggested John Landis had some knowledge, but doesn't say from whom exactly. The jury may always be out on this.

That TV Show "The Truth Behind" did take a fairly thorough look at things, but yes I'd like to hear Rick Bakers' opinion too.

I will admit my own opinions on this are uninformed opinions since I haven't studied these cases very much.

a reply to: ugmold
That's one petite lady, looks like she only weighs 500 pounds or so.

I dont know. But it does look pretty real. If anybody has been around or seen people who are that size move and there body type, its pretty spot on. I work out sometimes with a guy who is 6,4 and I think close to 500 pounds. He does have a bit of a stomach but the guy is just square and thick in the upper body. The guy benches 500 pounds like its nothing, does sets and sets of it, though one thing he cant do is pull ups, cant do a pull up to save his life.

That and squats, I can do more then him on that, generally I do 400 pounds on the bar squats and anywere from 900 to 1,500 on the low leg press machine. Though the only reason he cant do pull ups or squats is...Well on squats he has to push his own top body weight plus whatever weight is on his shoulder as well. And pull ups the more you weight the more you have to pull up, its why its much easier to do 20 pull ups when you weight 150 pounds compared to if you weighed 250 pounds.

On a side by side comparison with me, you can tell he is inches taller and wider, but you would never really ques he outweighs me by 200 sometime pounds, you would really not be able to tell he weighs that much just by looking. And yes! He does walk like that, swinging arms plodding stature and everything, got the whole square wide upper body and plodding walk down down pat.

If its a guy in a suit, its a pretty good suit. You can even see that it has muscle definition through all the hair and crappy resolution, and that right there tells you its pretty muscled whatever it is. And if its a suit, its a pretty dam good one, generally guys in suits like that, well first, if its that trunk heavy, the legs look like fabric hanging down and you can spot it pretty easily, on that vid there is none of that, it does look like the hair is coming off its definition ie flesh and not off of a suit.

To get something like that you would have to have a skin tight suit, so you dont get the fabric flowing look, or fill it out and pad it, which again you can tell pretty easily as well if its padded. That and its legs are pretty defined, and pretty well proportioned in both thickness and length for its size even they way there shaped is pretty spot on. On a guy in a suit? Well they look real squat, there legs are short compared to the body and would be much skinnier and have the fabric hanging look, and you can tell its a suit pretty easily.

Even on really tall and heavy legged dudes you would have a hard time seeing definition through a suit. Even the guy I was talking about would look like a guy in a suit if you put him in a monkey suit, the legs would definitely look more squat then that, and like I said the dude is at least 6,4 and 470 or more pounds and build like a brick wall, but even he would look stumpy in a side by side comparison with whatever is in that vid.

On this one vid, its pretty much does look like a real thing, even on the close up blown up picture it looks pretty young, its got the whole cone head shape to it like the others, and back before it became a common trait in other spotting. But hey you never know, and besides its not like regular people would encounter anything like that even if it did exist. Lets face it on average the human race has more in common with drone bees then anything else. So anything out of its programing would not register on there minds even if they ran into it.

Even the people who were looking for bigfoot, saw a documentary once of them putting up cameras in the deep woods. Well it turns out the deep woods was only a few miles out and they captured on film some deer, and one of those heavy bulldozers which they use to unroot trees. You know something even a mouse would spot and hear from 10 miles away.

Which i think think if Bigfoot exists the only ones people are going to see and catch on film will be the slow ones, you know the clumsy daydreamers and young who just wonder around with there fingers in there ears not looking were there going. Which begs the question why did this one on that film not spot the guy earlier?...Could be the daydreamer clumsy one I suppose. Or who knows.

So who knows, it could be a guy in a suit, as in it could be done. But why go to all those lengths for something which will be forgotten by the average watcher the second the vid ends? It just seems to be much ado about nothing you know. Passing curiosity at most. Though a recurrent themed one.

I'd also like to add that the argument "we would have found SOMETHING by now" is completely ridiculous because we are STILL finding completely uncontacted HUMAN BEINGS in the Amazon to the present day. Human beings are presumably more intelligent than your average gorilla, yet we are still finding uncontacted tribes, uncovering undiscovered fossil records, etc.

It amazes me that anyone could think of the concept of Bigfoot as an impossibility. It's like assuming there is no other life in the universe simply because we haven't encountered any yet (despite the odds). Science is supposed to be about discovery, curiosity, and verification, not blind assumptions. It's interesting that science tends to laud those individuals who engage in bold speculation about the possibility of extremophiles or even complicated organisms living within our own solar system, yet the prospect of some sort of primitive offshoot from the primate tree (Bigfoot) is somehow considered "pseudoscience".

originally posted by: jaffo

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?

there's a lot of other films out there, if you look. Here's one...www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: ugmold
That's one petite lady, looks like she only weighs 500 pounds or so.

I have to laugh because I never knew the film showed a female bigfoot. She is quite a catch.

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,

Well, if there are legitimate hair or fur samples why haven't they been tested for DNA for proof?

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
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.

Oh, I guess that's why.

I'm open to the possibility that there is something going on beyond hoax or misidentification but this is one of the reasons it's just very hard for me to get on board with the idea that it's a "nuts and bolts" cryptozoological creature.

originally posted by: shasta9600

originally posted by: jaffo

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?

there's a lot of other films out there, if you look. Here's one...www.youtube.com...

You realize that Paul Freeman has admitted making fake prints, right? You are really going to take the word of an admitted hoaxer that this is real?

Morris IS actually claiming that the costume below is the original that he used in the Patterson video....



that is an actual picture pulled directly from his costume website.


and as i'm sure you can tell, it looks nothing like the actual creature seen in the patterson video. sure it's got fur, two arms and two legs, but it's WAY, WAY off.

as for those asking about DNA testing and why nothing has come forward that is definitive about Bigfoot. well, that's a simple answer, it's classic government stonewalling. the national parks department and the army definitely knows about bigfoot. the parks department especially have a tight veil of secrecy in regards to bigfoot because of the many disappearances that have happened in our national parks. they can't obviously come forward and say that there is this highly intelligent creature roaming our national parks that has abducted men, women and children of various ages and that there's little to nothing that they do to address the issue because that would mean publicly admitting their existence, which in turn would mean that they would be admitting that we have been lied to for centuries.

if you've noticed we don't exactly have honestly in government here and that stretches and envelops our scientific community as well. both sectors aren't really keen on coming forward and honestly admitting that they've had knowledge of something that's been responsible for people going missing or if they're found at all, being found dead.

but, this thread isn't really about debating and proving the existence of Bigfoot, it's about the Patterson film specifically. In order to learn or prove that Bigfoot is real it's going to take a lot more than reading and posting on an ATS thread and that's the truth. It takes going out there, doing the leg work and seeing, hearing and learning for yourself. Anonymous words aren't going to change anyone's staunch opinion on the matter.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

lmao it's not even the same color...

a reply to: DeadSeraph

EXACTLY! Not to mention that in addition to the color being way off, the hair pattern is extremely off as well, as the lady bigfoot in the video has hair covering her entire belly and upper chest/nipples as well, while the costume has bare patches on the upper chest and stomach. And there are people out there who don't even question the legitimacy of his claims. Just accept that what he's saying is true because they believe the video MUST be hoaxed. But, if the guy who comes forward to claim that it was him who made the suit and then he comes forward saying that he is presenting said suit used in the video and it doesn't match nearly as well as you would expect, well then what?

Then the conclusion I come to is that the claimed hoaxer is a liar trying to take credit for a legitimate bigfoot video in order to get an increase in sales for his own costume business. i mean it's incredibly obvious what this guys motivation is. gaining attention for his costume shop and getting money from making the false claim.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I found an article of a guy named Brian Penikas,who had met and interviewed John Chambers about his alleged involvement with the PGF.It can be read here

keep in mind that this was shot on film and not your current mobile camera phones where Patterson would've been able to easily take multiple video clips, both of them watch it together, delete all unbelievable clips and mistakes, tell the guy in suit to go back to the spot in the scorching CA heat for another reshoot. In reality, he would've had to do multiple shots at the forest, go home to develop the film, analyze the film to look for any hoax mistakes and call up the guy to put on his suit again for another reshoot because it turned out to shaky, he wasnt crouching enough, it looked to human or exposed to much of the costume.

I don't know how expensive a roll of film was back then and I don't know how far he lived from ground zero to be able to go back multiple times to land the money shot. So either he got lucky and landed the most believable hoax in history with few trial and error, or he got even luckier to not only witness but also filmed the most elusive creature ever as proof of its existence.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: DeadSeraph

EXACTLY! Not to mention that in addition to the color being way off, the hair pattern is extremely off as well, as the lady bigfoot in the video has hair covering her entire belly and upper chest/nipples as well, while the costume has bare patches on the upper chest and stomach. And there are people out there who don't even question the legitimacy of his claims. Just accept that what he's saying is true because they believe the video MUST be hoaxed. But, if the guy who comes forward to claim that it was him who made the suit and then he comes forward saying that he is presenting said suit used in the video and it doesn't match nearly as well as you would expect, well then what?

Then the conclusion I come to is that the claimed hoaxer is a liar trying to take credit for a legitimate bigfoot video in order to get an increase in sales for his own costume business. i mean it's incredibly obvious what this guys motivation is. gaining attention for his costume shop and getting money from making the false claim.

There are MANY claims being made about who made the suit,who was in the suit,and where the suit is now.Don't you think that if it is indeed a suit,whoever made it would prove it so they could seek fame and fortune in the make up and costume industry in Hollywood?

I think the secret is in the PGF itself.Maybe sometime soon technology will be good enough to study the film properly and without doubt.Gimlin still swears by the film to this day.If it was hoaxed I think he would come out and say it was instead of facing people accusing him of being a hoaxer,especially now that Rodger has been gone all these years.

originally posted by: Richsac89
keep in mind that this was shot on film and not your current mobile camera phones where Patterson would've been able to easily take multiple video clips, both of them watch it together, delete all unbelievable clips and mistakes, tell the guy in suit to go back to the spot in the scorching CA heat for another reshoot. In reality, he would've had to do multiple shots at the forest, go home to develop the film, analyze the film to look for any hoax mistakes and call up the guy to put on his suit again for another reshoot because it turned out to shaky, he wasnt crouching enough, it looked to human or exposed to much of the costume.

I don't know how expensive a roll of film was back then and I don't know how far he lived from ground zero to be able to go back multiple times to land the money shot. So either he got lucky and landed the most believable hoax in history with few trial and error, or he got even luckier to not only witness but also filmed the most elusive creature ever as proof of its existence.

I've read that Patterson had to rent the camera.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: DeadSeraph

EXACTLY! Not to mention that in addition to the color being way off, the hair pattern is extremely off as well, as the lady bigfoot in the video has hair covering her entire belly and upper chest/nipples as well, while the costume has bare patches on the upper chest and stomach. And there are people out there who don't even question the legitimacy of his claims. Just accept that what he's saying is true because they believe the video MUST be hoaxed. But, if the guy who comes forward to claim that it was him who made the suit and then he comes forward saying that he is presenting said suit used in the video and it doesn't match nearly as well as you would expect, well then what?

Then the conclusion I come to is that the claimed hoaxer is a liar trying to take credit for a legitimate bigfoot video in order to get an increase in sales for his own costume business. i mean it's incredibly obvious what this guys motivation is. gaining attention for his costume shop and getting money from making the false claim.

There are MANY claims being made about who made the suit,who was in the suit,and where the suit is now.Don't you think that if it is indeed a suit,whoever made it would prove it so they could seek fame and fortune in the make up and costume industry in Hollywood?

I think the secret is in the PGF itself.Maybe sometime soon technology will be good enough to study the film properly and without doubt.Gimlin still swears by the film to this day.If it was hoaxed I think he would come out and say it was instead of facing people accusing him of being a hoaxer,especially now that Rodger has been gone all these years.

I completely agree with you. I think if it were indeed a man in a suit they would be able to successfully prove that without a shadow of a doubt. They would be credited with creating possibly the most famous and widely debated cryptid video ever made. And they could probably get some serious work and recognition in the special effects/costume field.

Considering how long it has been I do think Patterson would have caved or showed his hand in some way shape or form after over 50 years of debate and scrutiny. After all that time it can't be proved to be fake by the supposed people who created/helped with creating it. However as our technology gets better and better I believe we will eventually be able to definitively say that the video and the creature seen in it is real. Kind of like the infamous Roswell photo with the air force gentlemen holding the letter that with help of recent technology has been analyzed and shown to contain words proving the weather balloon nonsense was just a cover story and the Army was/is in possession of bodies & craft.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
I'd also like to add that the argument "we would have found SOMETHING by now" is completely ridiculous because we are STILL finding completely uncontacted HUMAN BEINGS in the Amazon to the present day. Human beings are presumably more intelligent than your average gorilla, yet we are still finding uncontacted tribes, uncovering undiscovered fossil records, etc.

Surely such irellevant fallacies are a (quite successful) attempt at extremist/absurd humour?

You do realize that humans are a well known species? Uncontacted by whom? Thier mom forgot to call them for dinner?

That we've found (according to you) a few more to go with the well documented 7 billion or so population of humans (that are known to exist) = therefore there are breeding populations of 6'-12' ape like creatures running the length and breadth of the US (while leaving no credible signs that they exist). Yep, that's logical. Lol.

I think you might be also overlooking the fact that, unlike bigfoot, they were found?

It amazes me that anyone could think of the concept of Bigfoot as an impossibility.

Strawman. I have yet to hear a scientist or skeptic claim that the idea of a bigfoot type creature existing on our planet is impossible. Because something isn't an impossibility does't mean it is probable, or that it exists. The notion of bigfoot *as claimed* is so low in probability and unbacked by any genuine evidence that it certainly doesn't exist. It is a myth of pop culture.

It's like assuming there is no other life in the universe simply because we haven't encountered any yet (despite the odds).

Strawman again. The probability of life elsewhere in the universe is irrelevant to whether bigfoot exists in the NA.

Science is supposed to be about discovery, curiosity, and verification, not blind assumptions.

It is all those things. The problem is that bigfoot is irellevant to the physical sciences because the physical evidence is so lacking. All the evidence there is (claims and hoaxes) makes it relevant only to sociology and psychology.

It's interesting that science tends to laud those individuals who engage in bold speculation about the possibility of extremophiles or even complicated organisms living within our own solar system, yet the prospect of some sort of primitive offshoot from the primate tree (Bigfoot) is somehow considered "pseudoscience".

That's because, unlike bigfoot, they aren't a myth of pop culture and could exist.

If this isn't pseudo science, I don't know what is.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Oh here we go.

This is obviously a waste of my time, but what the hell.

Surely such irellevant fallacies are a (quite successful) attempt at extremist/absurd humour?

What? I get you are intelligent. You don't have to try so hard that you come off sounding like a dolt.

You do realize that humans are a well known species? Uncontacted by whom? Thier mom forgot to call them for dinner?

By other humans. Uncontacted tribes. Completely uncontacted. People are going to the moon, texting, taking pictures of the universe, contemplating quantum physics, etc. These tribes have not seen the light of civilization. At all. Again, you are not coming off nearly as smart as you think you are.

That we've found (according to you) a few more to go with the well documented 7 billion or so population of humans (that are known to exist) = therefore there are breeding populations of 6'-12' ape like creatures running the length and breadth of the US (while leaving no credible signs that they exist). Yep, that's logical. Lol.

Again... What?

If I am reading your incredibly broken sentence properly, you are implying I suggested bigfoot is running the breadth of the U.S? That's funny... I don't recall saying that? Perhaps you could quote me?

I think you might be also overlooking the fact that, unlike bigfoot, they were found?

Who? The previously unfound tribes? Maybe the silverback gorilla that was also previously mocked? You are making an ass of yourself, but please, let's continue.

Strawman. I have yet to hear a scientist or skeptic claim that the idea of a bigfoot type creature existing on our planet is impossible

How is that a strawman? Do you even understand what a strawman argument is?

Because something isn't an impossibility does't mean it is probable, or that it exists. The notion of bigfoot *as claimed* is so low in probability and unbacked by any genuine evidence that it certainly doesn't exist.

Do you even read what you type before you hit the reply button? So because something is "low in probability" that means it certainly doesn't exist? Very scientific of you.

Strawman again. The probability of life elsewhere in the universe is irrelevant to whether bigfoot exists in the NA.

see above.

It is all those things. The problem is that bigfoot is irellevant to the physical sciences because the physical evidence is so lacking.

Ridiculous. At bare minimum, science should be interested in identifying the misidentifications (if that is all they are). For instance, the recent discovery that there is actually a polar bear/brown bear hybrid in the himalayas that was previously thought to be extinct (and is now thought to comprise the majority of yeti sightings). This discovery wouldn't have been possible if the field was ruled by the sort of ignorance you are currently displaying.

All the evidence there is (claims and hoaxes) makes it relevant only to sociology and psychology.

Nonsense. See above.

That's because, unlike bigfoot, they aren't a myth of pop culture and could exist.

If this isn't pseudo science, I don't know what is.

If this isn't pseudo skepticism, I don't know what is.

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

Oh here we go.

This is obviously a waste of my time, but what the hell.

Yeah, wouldn't be used to that, studying bigfoot.

What? I get you are intelligent. You don't have to try so hard that you come off sounding like a dolt.

Not much of an explanation. In fact, another fallacy (ad hominem).

By other humans. Uncontacted tribes. Completely uncontacted. People are going to the moon, texting, taking pictures of the universe, contemplating quantum physics, etc. These tribes have not seen the light of civilization. At all. Again, you are not coming off nearly as smart as you think you are.

I'll be sure to post (sarcasm) where relevant, in future.

(sarcasm)Wow, haven't seen civilisation? Then bigfoot is real!!!(/sarcasm)

You haven't explained how this makes breeding populations of uncatalogued species (yes, more than one) of huge apes across every mainland US state, any more likely (there are also 1 or 2 reports from Hawaii afaik).

Again... What?

If I am reading your incredibly broken sentence properly, you are implying I suggested bigfoot is running the breadth of the U.S? That's funny... I don't recall saying that? Perhaps you could quote me?

That is what the bigfoot data (sightings) claims. If you have your own version, let's see it. I would be interested in hearing how you discount claims, in view of the bigfooter aphorism that "they can't all be lies or misidentifications" etc.

Who? The previously unfound tribes? Maybe the silverback gorilla that was also previously mocked? You are making an ass of yourself, but please, let's continue.

An oldie but a goodie. Natives gave skulls of Gorillas to western missionaries. On the strength of this, people went out, shot Gorillas and bought them back. In wild and remote central Africa in the mid 1800's. Not sounding much like bigfoot.

Who was it that mocked, specifically?

How is that a strawman? Do you even understand what a strawman argument is?

It is when you create your own version of an opposing argument and attack that, rather than face the real objection. No scientist nor educated sceptic I have ever heard, has claimed the notion of an uncatalogued Ape/Hominid species, impossible. In fact, most who look into it do so because it is very obviously possible. It is simply the lack of evidence that discredits bigfoot.

So yes, you are creating your own opposing view, then attacking it as if it means something.

Do you even read what you type before you hit the reply button? So because something is "low in probability" that means it certainly doesn't exist? Very scientific of you.

Okay. As proffered by the bigfoot community it has about the same probability as Elves existing, or slightly less (and same standard of evidence).

see above.

Same.

Ridiculous. At bare minimum, science should be interested in identifying the misidentifications (if that is all they are).

Lol.

For instance, the recent discovery that there is actually a polar bear/brown bear hybrid in the himalayas that was previously thought to be extinct (and is now thought to comprise the majority of yeti sightings). This discovery wouldn't have been possible if the field was ruled by the sort of ignorance you are currently displaying.

What convinces you of that? Scientists certainly haven't reached a consensus where they have accepted it. In fact, you will find strong objection to Sykes study and his ancient/hybrid bear hypothesis. Sykes himself wasn't thoroughly convinced. He only said it was a possibility, in leu of the scientific community interpreting the data. There were other problems (apart from debate about the results) that made Sykes hypothesis unlikely to be accepted to begin with.

Nonsense. See above.

Same.

If this isn't pseudo skepticism, I don't know what is.

I agree. You don't (know what is).