patterson bigfoot stabilised ~fake

Originally posted by SMR
The stablized video does nothing to debunk this.
The centralized part of the video that is being studied is already steady in the original.

TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beckjord

Originally posted by saukrates420
I tend to believe it isn't fake. One because of the sheer size of the creature. Two because of the anatomical features of this creature, it's forearms are far too long and big to be a human's. Thirdly, closeups on the creature's face show a legitimate face, not a mask or makeup. Another reason to believe it's a true creature are it's legs, I have never seen a suit that could replicate huge muscle movements as effectively as that. If it is a man in a ape suit, it must be somewhere inbetween the size of Shaquille O'Neal and that Bigshow wrestler. The stabilization does nothing for me, since if a bipedal ape does exist it's method of walking would be much the same as our own. So thats so much for the stabilization, it doesn't prove anything except that it's bipedal walking method is much like our own, which one could expect if we are dealing with a bipedal ape. Also if you do a closeup of the feet they look simply too real and large to be fakes. You can't see any lines or seams that would constitute a suit or fake feet. This thing in is legitimate in my honest opinion. Anatomists all over the world have looked at this film and all of them have concluded that it's walking pattern is consistent with a real animal. Lastly the mammory glands on this thing looked quite proportional with the creature, and not alot of suits would include such a thing. Not to say they couldn't be included in a suit, but in my mind it looks nothing like a man in a suit. I'd like to think people can tell between a man in a suit and a real creature, especially at relative close distances as in the Patterson/Grimlin film.

It doesn't take a genius to look at this footage and realize it's no person in a suit. Mainly for it's anatomical size and swaying of the arms. I've never met a person who could fill out a 7 1/2 - 8 Feet tall suit with 400-500 lbs to go with it. I don't fully understand why zoologists and scientists reject the footage. Grimlin has contested to it's authenticity from the time it was made till the day he dies, which he is quoted as saying. We already know that's exactly how adament Patterson was since he proclaimed it's authenticity all the way to his deathbed. As for Patterson's family claiming it was a hoax, I think that's a rouse. I wouldn't believe it until I saw them saying as such and as far as I know nobody has footage of them mouthing those words.

Originally posted by saukrates420
I tend to believe it isn't fake. One because of the sheer size of the creature. Two because of the anatomical features of this creature, it's forearms are far too long and big to be a human's. Thirdly, closeups on the creature's face show a legitimate face, not a mask or makeup. Another reason to believe it's a true creature are it's legs, I have never seen a suit that could replicate huge muscle movements as effectively as that. If it is a man in a ape suit, it must be somewhere inbetween the size of Shaquille O'Neal and that Bigshow wrestler. The stabilization does nothing for me, since if a bipedal ape does exist it's method of walking would be much the same as our own. So thats so much for the stabilization, it doesn't prove anything except that it's bipedal walking method is much like our own, which one could expect if we are dealing with a bipedal ape. Also if you do a closeup of the feet they look simply too real and large to be fakes. You can't see any lines or seams that would constitute a suit or fake feet. This thing in is legitimate in my honest opinion. Anatomists all over the world have looked at this film and all of them have concluded that it's walking pattern is consistent with a real animal. Lastly the mammory glands on this thing looked quite proportional with the creature, and not alot of suits would include such a thing. Not to say they couldn't be included in a suit, but in my mind it looks nothing like a man in a suit. I'd like to think people can tell between a man in a suit and a real creature, especially at relative close distances as in the Patterson/Grimlin film.

It doesn't take a genius to look at this footage and realize it's no person in a suit. Mainly for it's anatomical size and swaying of the arms. I've never met a person who could fill out a 7 1/2 - 8 Feet tall suit with 400-500 lbs to go with it. I don't fully understand why zoologists and scientists reject the footage. Grimlin has contested to it's authenticity from the time it was made till the day he dies, which he is quoted as saying. We already know that's exactly how adament Patterson was since he proclaimed it's authenticity all the way to his deathbed. As for Patterson's family claiming it was a hoax, I think that's a rouse. I wouldn't believe it until I saw them saying as such and as far as I know nobody has footage of them mouthing those words.

reply: also do not forget the tracks show a weight of 4,240 lbs.

By comparison test done by Bob Gimlin on site.

High amount? Paranormal beast.

beckjord.com

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by Instar

@ points for you though:
(a) the seem line down the back.

No primate has a neat part down the spine

(b) the perfectly hairy arse

No primate's arse is totally hairy either

[edit on 023131p://51012 by instar]

I think you mean "NO KNOWN PRIMATES ARSE IS TOTALLY HAIRY"
Can you point out which Bigfoort researcher has been close enough to Bigfoot populations to study their butt hair and document the density thereof.

[edit on 2-27-2005 by groingrinder]

replyu: wake up. BF is not a zoologicial primate.

It is a paranormal shapeshifter that looks like a primate.

So get real, or er, unreal.

beckjord.com

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
That's interesting mrwupy...do you realise that your statment, that the hair seems "combed" is different from the views of F215 ?

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.

I really wish you debunkers would get your stories straight ...

Ahh...me...but none of you debunkers can explain how in 1967, a person of no real monetary means, can create a suit that shows the muscle movement that is shown in the film...

rely: yes, Patterson was broke.

Beckjord

Originally posted by Ajax
I must say, when I first saw this initial post and viewed the stabilized footage I thought "Well damn...it turns out to be nothing more than a hoax." It convinced me that it was a hoax and made me sad, because I truly believed it was real. However I still do believe in bigfoot, why is it so hard to believe that a primate lives in North America? But I digress...back to my point.

After reading the conversation that has come about, I really think that you debunkers are shooting yourselves in the foot. I am LESS convinced now that it's fake than when I just read the beginning!

Jedi_Master has provided a sound argument full of many valid points. Everyone else is relying on false truths, premises, and what-ifs. The debunkers are also contradicting themselves left and right. Additionally when it is discovered that a statement of theirs is wrong, they basically shrug it off. (IE: The hairy arse) In light of that, it seems like the debunkers are grasping at any sort of hint of incontinuity they can.

The only additional good argument against the footage that has come about was when the new guy posted about some spectral analysis, and indigo dye being used. I would love to see the results of that.

But all this non-sense about messed up fur, combed fur, seams, water bags...Wow, instar & wumpy you guys are struggling. I have yet to hear either of you talk in length about the muscle movements or the fact that this was made in 1967. The only argument I've heard is that there were water bags...Yeah right. I guess they used water bags over the entire body to account for muscle movement.

**Also to address whoever mentioned the fact that it walks exactly like a human. This is a new species we're trying to account for, quite possibly a missing link. How can you tell us anything about how it walks. The fact that it DOES walk in a very human says something. For an unrecorded species of hominid, somewhere between man and ape, wouldn't that be exactly what you WOULD look for? Please refine your arguments, you're digging your own graves in this debate.

EDIT: Unfortunately I still have a few concerns about the legitmacy of this footage though. Jedi_Master, or anyone else, could you tell me why the bigfoot merely WALKS away instead of running? In the wild, most creatures run at the first sign of possible danger. Let's view it from both sides. If it were a man in a suit it didn't run because of huge bulky pads, and for added effect. But if it were a bigfoot why not run?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Ajax]

reply: Yup -- even an ostrich walks like a human -- two legs, got it?

Beckjord.com

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Would you really expect it to be ?




Why isn't this baboon's face the same color ( and I'm not saying it is a baboon, just pointing out that this happens in the animal world ) ?

Also...yes they do bounce, remember seeing an animated .gif that shows it, I'll see if I can dig it up...

reply:

That is a MANDRILL BABOON, with exotic colors.

bUT IN FRAME 350, pgFILM, AND OTHER FRAMES, there is a baboon head
coming out of the main head, and this DRIVES YOU GUYS NUTS!



BECKJORD.COM