patterson bigfoot stabilised ~fake

LMAO "IT" didnt run because he wanted his buddy to get good footage of him !
Moreover larger primates dont run away either, havent you ever watched documentys? They are more likely to defend their territory/young!

[edit on 103131p://020110 by instar]

Originally posted by instar

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Look closely at the right leg at about the thigh in the footage. Notice anything on it?

Yes I was going to mention there appears to be a pocket, but I thought it might be overkill!
Really tell me why a new animal of this kind would be so vastly different?

I cant say that its a pocket but there is a bulge there. If we look at would cause a bulge like that on a living animal there is only one thing I can think of a hernia.

The bulge went undetected for almost 35 years.

Many experts have looked at this flim and I have never seen one point out a line in the back or lack of a hairy butt as evidence of a fake.

Aside from the shaky video evidence and hoaxes, there is other evidence pointing to unknown primate species. We've got Bigfoot in the NW, we've got the Skunk Ape here in Fl, and we've got the Yeti in the Himalyas, etc. We've got hairs that still don't match known primates, primate nests in areas where no primates are known, fecal matter that is inconclusive, footprint castings, etc.

Kal Korff has supposedly found the people who fake the film (Patterson´s friends) and have reproduced it.

I don´t trust much in Korff, but anyways, here are a couple of links:

www.findarticles.com...
www.roswell.org...

Originally posted by Peronemlin
Kal Korff has supposedly found the people who fake the film (Patterson´s friends) and have reproduced it.

I don´t trust much in Korff, but anyways, here are a couple of links:

www.findarticles.com...
www.roswell.org...

Interesting, but I'm not really convinced by that. Its very impressive how well its seems to have been reenacted, especially in that seocnd link, but I'm not totally convinced about this. After all, it can't be all that difficult to reenact (or is it?). Besides, even if the Patterson film is fake that doesn't dismiss the possibilty of bigfoot like they make it seem.

Oh I dont dismiss the possibility that a creature like bigfoot MIGHT exist, in some unexplored area of the planet, artic, siberian forest ect. Im simply saying that footage is faked and so have all similar ones been to date. Folk who so desperatly want others to beleive that they fake things, simply defeat their own purpous. You cant blame folk being unwilling to beleive, in the face of fake after fake and no tested proven evidence.

Originally posted by instar
(b) the perfectly hairy arse

No primate's arse is totally hairy either

None ???

Don't suppose you've heard of a Mountian Gorilla have you ?






Looks pretty hairy too me...

Oh...about the seam...

I suppose this guy has a zipper too...





[edit on 12-1-2005 by Jedi_Master]

good job jedi_master. I was waiting for someone to post photos like the ones you did. I would have done it myself but I don't know how.

The video most certainly hasn't been debunked though there have been many attempts including many theories that contradict one another.

Thanks SethJaneRob...

Oh...and about the Bob Hieronimus confession, here is something to think about, it is from a Baltimore City Paper On-line, cached on the BFRO site...

"This is just to make money--to sell a book," Hieronimus says. "And Fox [television] will push it."

(As it turns out, the details of Heironimus' alleged faux film work are revealed in the recently released tome The Making of Bigfoot byGreg Long--a writer/researcher Hieronimus brands "not too reliable.")

www.bfro.net...

Sounds to me like old Bobby boy is just out to make a buck...

Yeah sure we know from verified documents Bush advantaged his connections to avoid Viet Nam by joining the National Guard.

Consider how the CBS Bush story went. You introduce one data sheet, one instance you cannot prove, indeed it is totally faked. Then because of the this one fake piece of data, the entire story is shelved, even though the proper information is all available that proves the editorial point. To lend further "credibility," to the decision the entire piece is worthless, you send out pink slips for Christmas to your employees who worked on the story. No matter how much the authentic story proves, hey you control the voting machines, and the news media, so why allow details like the actual data to get in the way? Your fake data has done its job for a weak mass media.

Now flash forward to this analogy, where the Paterson Bigfoot film is proved false. Okay so shelve all the other data!

That is how disinformation works in some instances. You simply introduce some false data mixed with the truth, then watch the court of propaganda destroy the truth.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Ajax


Anyway, here's a thought. The fact that it does walk away and not run says a lot. Would a wild gorilla or monkey, or any creature for that matter just walk away when approached? Photographers can barely get close enough to primates by sneaking up in the wild before they run. Now imagine 2 men on horseback, clunking along, trying to approach the thing. I guarantee you it would run, not casually stride away.


[edit on 9-1-2005 by Ajax]

Would an animal with no natural enemies run away? Especially one with seemingly rare human contact. I remember reading about animals on remote islands, like the galapagos (sp?) that would be curious and actually approach humans because they had never seen them before and had no fear.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by instar
(b) the perfectly hairy arse

No primate's arse is totally hairy either

None ???

Don't suppose you've heard of a Mountian Gorilla have you ?

Looks pretty hairy too me...

Ok Im wrong about the hairy arse! LOl but you fail to point out the obvious, i.e. the patterson footage is NOT a mountain gorilla.
you add to my suggestion its fake with your gorilla pic, your gorilla isnt walking upright in a human fashion. Im sure an anthropologist could easily debunk the footage based on observing the walk. Sorry, I know you want to believe its real.

I really don't care if the Patterson film was fake or not, I still believe that Bigfoot exists. Why you ask? Because i've seen one with my own eyes.

I was driving from Jonesboro Arkansas back to my home in Fayetteville Arkansas one night and was in the national forest. There was a clearing between the edge of the highway and the forest that was maybe 20 feet. As i drove along i noticed what appeared to be a tree by the side of the road but as I got closer it turned and strode back into the forest and bygod it was a Bigfoot. It didn't run away, it walked. It didn't turn to look at me either, it just walked back into the forest like it was out for an evening stroll.

I'm just glad it didn't walk out into the road cause i would have knee capped it for sure with the bumper of the car. I pushed the accelerator to the floor and didn't slow down till I got to the next town, all the while I kept looking in the rearview mirror to make sure it wasn't chasing me or anything like that.

I cannot prove this happened. I was alone and don't even have a witness to back me up. More than one person has called me a nut, I don't care. I know what I saw that night and bygolly it was a bigfoot.

Love and light to each of you,

Wupy

[edit on 14-1-2005 by mrwupy]

Thanks for that link, i haven’t seen the video in 8 years.

The last time i saw it, it was on a documentary that pointed out that the creature depicted in the film had breasts, and indeed if you look as it turns it has breasts. The documentary pointed out how naturally those breast moved with the creature, admittingly it does not appear as obvious as i remember seeing it in the documentary but why would they have added such large breasts to the suit.

The belt could just be a mass of hair at the base of its back [i have the same problem myself] the line witch runs down the back of the creature could also be due to the thickening of the hair in that region. Also look closer at the hands the base of the feet and the creature’s muscular detail. I don’t think this proves it was a hoax even if Patterson said it himself, there may have been reasons for his submission.

One thing that does bother me is the positioning of its butt it would be interesting to compare a gorilla standing upright at a side angle.

Edit to say: i didn’t check out the rest of the link as i got carried away but that’s ats members, they even have side on pictures of upright gorilla’s.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by kode]

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Thanks SethJaneRob...

Oh...and about the Bob Hieronimus confession, here is something to think about, it is from a Baltimore City Paper On-line, cached on the BFRO site...

"This is just to make money--to sell a book," Hieronimus says. "And Fox [television] will push it."

(As it turns out, the details of Heironimus' alleged faux film work are revealed in the recently released tome The Making of Bigfoot byGreg Long--a writer/researcher Hieronimus brands "not too reliable.")

www.bfro.net...

Sounds to me like old Bobby boy is just out to make a buck...

Maryland has the highest number of bigfoot sightings in the US. I personally believe its because of black bear here. They're rare enough not to be found but numerous enough to be seen. Ive seen them on a few occasions and if you were traveling in a car you'd probably think it was a bigfoot.


However I do believe bigfoots real

Originally posted by instar

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by instar
(b) the perfectly hairy arse

No primate's arse is totally hairy either

None ???

Don't suppose you've heard of a Mountian Gorilla have you ?

Looks pretty hairy too me...

Ok Im wrong about the hairy arse! LOl but you fail to point out the obvious, i.e. the patterson footage is NOT a mountain gorilla.
you add to my suggestion its fake with your gorilla pic, your gorilla isnt walking upright in a human fashion. Im sure an anthropologist could easily debunk the footage based on observing the walk. Sorry, I know you want to believe its real.

No sorry...

You said that there was no primate with a hariy arse, I corrected you on that matter, I didn't say that the Patterson footage was of a primate, or of a Mountian Gorilla, did I ? ( look at the posts again ), that's your words, not mine...


I only stated that you were wrong in your guesses, that there were No Primates with a hariy arse, and that there were No Primates with a seam down the back...

Those were your words dude...not mine...

No sorry...

You said that there was no primate with a hariy arse, I corrected you on that matter, I didn't say that the Patterson footage was of a primate, or of a Mountian Gorilla, did I ? ( look at the posts again ), that's your words, not mine...


I only stated that you were wrong in your guesses, that there were No Primates with a hariy arse, and that there were No Primates with a seam down the back...

Those were your words dude...not mine...

Sorry, misunderstanding, No i didnt mean to imply you thought pattersons hoax was a gorilla, i was pointing out a gorilla cannot be used to say pattersons hoax might be real, by showing that a gorilla also has a hairy arse. lol
I was wrong about the hairy arse, but I stand by my statement that none have a seem. The hairline on the gorilla looks different top the seem on pattersons bigfoot.
Again let me say that although i dont beleive pattersons video is legit, I dont discount the possibility that such a creature may exist somewhere remote.

Well...

The seam you are seeing, is a trick of light ( from what it seems to me, the muscles in the back cause it, which is why I posted the pics ), and NO, I am not a firm beliver of Bigfoot, I've just been spending about 10 yrs of my life looking into this issue of the Patterson film ( probably wasted time )...

The Patterson film is...well...what can I say, it is an anomaly...

I've viewed it frontwards and backwards, and seen the muscles move the limbs in the film, there is no way that in 1967, there was the tech to produce a suit that could do this...

BTW...the clips that are available on the net...are poor at best, you need to get the digitally enhanced version to see this film at it's best...

But that is just my opinion...

You have your own...

Afternoon, folks. I just found this site through an indirectly related Google search and thought I'd check it out.

The key to this is in the "creature's" fur. Real hair or fur on an animal will have a relatively regular direction to it, resulting from the position of the follicles that will, by design, allow the smoothest passage through the animal's surroundings. This is exactly what you don't see in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. The fur is going every which way, like a shag carpet, even in specific anatomical areas, where one would expect to see some coherence. Additionally, artificial black fur/hair is actually really, really dark blue. It is created using an indigo dye, and this will show up on a digital analysis as blue pixels in areas where light directly strikes the fibers. Real black fur/hair is actually really, really dark brown. The only thing in nature that is truly black is carbon (charcoal). I'd bet that if one were to digitally analyse the film that there would be some blue pixels popping up, although the age and degradation, as well as the low quality of the original film might adversely affect this type of scrutiny. The last part of the footage that really kills it is the way the subject walks, which is wholly inconsistent with subsequent "eyewitness encounters." The walk is decidedly human, despite the stilted analyses of various "experts" who are clearly seeing only what they want to see. I have seen additional film where a tall man (approx. 6'2"+) walked along the same path as the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin piece and mimicked the gait and arm swings perfectly. The two films were juxtaposed and it became obvious that the 1967 film was nothing more than a hoax. Patterson and his cronies weren't lacking for a sense of humor, either, when they went over the top and gave Sasquatch breasts and a big fat butt. Notice that there isn't any well-defined muscularity or contraction/relaxation in the subject's gluteal region, which one would certainly see in a creature with such muscle density.

I'm not denying the possibility of Bigfoot's existence, as I've known more than one person who has either heard vocalizations similar to those recorded or has been stalked/chased by something very large and very fast in forested areas near swamps just after dark. Unfortunately, Patterson has been vilified by a number of acquaintances for various cons over the years. He apparently had a knack for screwing people over, which speaks to his overall character and veracity. So, while Sasquatch may indeed roam the forests on North America, I don't think you'll catch a glimpse of the old wookie in the Patterson-Gimlin footage.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by F215]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by F215]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by F215]