Bigfoot: New HD enhancement of the Patterson-Gimlin footage.

a reply to: one4all

Hey they can join the olympics, at a 42 to 48 walking stride, and a 62 to 70 running stride, they can bullzode right through the competition and likely outrun the fastest human competitors out there, judging by they way they can just bolt. Not bad for something that is 7 feet and likley in the 600 to 700 pounds. That's like having andre the giant, smoking Usain bolt in a straight out run.

They can probably even outdrink ol Andre the giant, I think from what I heard or what google says, his record was 156 beers in one sitting. I heard once in an interview forgot were with some other wrestlers, that he drank that much or more then that, on a car ride during a trip.

But anyways, on both accounts and in fact on all accounts. Its a no contest, in bigfoot vs man.

Which is why, you should not feed the animals.

Love the US bigfoot mystery.....

I still reckon they are escaped black slaves from the past 300 years, who have built their own lifestyle independent of white fellas, and wear bear skins for protection in the cold.

Love this new analysis of the film, but Im fairly sure that "Person" is wearing white soled shoes of some sort. Certainly looks like it.....tennis shoes or something. (as they were called in those days).

Looks to have boobs, but no female hip sway.......but does have a big booty, ala Africans.

Still a mystery though.

a reply to: gort51

There is Bigfoot sign littered all around the area they are filming in.....enough work has been done on the original film with todays technology to give us new views and defined insights which now prove conclusively that it is not a person in a suit....I noticed the feet right away as well and also noticed no one really discusses it even though it jumps out at you however the Bigfoot signs everywhere combined with the new ways of viewing the original film close the case for me....funny looking feet or not and I am 110% sure that if we went there today there are still hundreds and hundreds of Bigfoot signs remaining everywhere even if it isn't still inhabited by a Clan that is active which it could certainly again be.

Anyone who thinks this is a "man in a suit" watch the best Hollywood has to offer one year later in the first
"Planet of the Apes" released in 1968. Hollywood put out some very bad costumes for that movie with all their money and didn't come closeto whats in the Patterson film.
Maybe most of you aren't old enough to remember but there is NO WAY two poor cowboys
could make a suit in 1966/1967 for that filming of the Patterson film. Patterson didn't even own the camera. He had to rent it. How the heck did he afford a costume that is light years ahead of what Hollywood did in the "Planet of the Apes"?
Bill Munns was a costume designer in Hollywood during that time frame and discusses the fact that Hollywood could not
make a costume like that then. Not only that there is no way those two cowboys would put breasts on that costume that
are that realistic. Even today of that quality would take $10,000 which those guys didn't have.
Look up Bill Munns on Youtube.
Two things usually reveal the truth, the money, and the facts. They didnt have the money and those are the facts.

MK Davies has the absolute best breakdowns of this evidence...it is not humanly possible to watch his videos and not with a 100% certainty know he has discovered the truths.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: one4all

This one is so tough. Normally 100% of the time stuff like this is fake. I think a lot of people want to believe, and I know that I'm one of them. There are a few issues on both sides however which don't add up.

In favor of PG film being real:
Being able to do analysis like this 40 years from when the video was created. I mean I think I can agree with most people that tend to side on the bigfoot is real camp when looking at this video. If this were a hoax, this video would be able to be hoax bin'd quickly. You can't explain the following from this video which we couldn't analyze until digital technologies:

Soles of feet - Visible Breasts - Ability to see muscles flexing in back, legs etc. If this were a suit, even the facial details we would be able to debunk given the technology available now that wasn't available then. Personally the more I look at this video the more I think it is real.

In favor of bigfoot being 100% bunk:
Where are the bodies? We have millions of trail cams out in nature now, why don't we have one solid pic? With all of the people 'looking' for bigfoot, why hasn't someone found bigfoot?

For me personally, I want to believe. I think the PG film is the best evidence for the existence of bigfoot, that being said my logical brain looks at the overwhelming absence of evidence and has a hard time believing. I totally understand that the absence of evidence doesn't make something not true, but given how much effort actually goes into trying to find evidence shouldn't we see more? I mean if the PG film is real how did two yahoos who wanted to find bigfoot actually find him. From a mathematical perspective this is almost impossible given how few people were looking then compared to now, and using this logic I just can't see how this is real.

My final verdict, want to believe, but math doesn't lie and tells me this is impossible.

a reply to: mzinga

The absence of evidence is a two-bladed sword....because once you delve into real hands on research and connect to the reality and to the Species then suddenly there will be evidence that has no explanation in an impossible volume.Then the reverse happens...you are drug down the Rabbit hole by your short hairs...you cannot stop wondering how this evidence suddenly appeared.

I have walked down trails ALONE after gifting and connecting and have had EVIDENCE placed on the trail in the middle of the path FOR ME....no one else was there or on the path....I hike down do my thing then hike back....no one else in between....someone out-flanked me and got ahead of me on egress and left me return gifts.

Now I have walked 1000s of KM of trails and not had this happen...but EVERY TIME I have followed a specific Bigfoot program this evidence appears.

Same with their signs and structures...and believe me others are also figuring this out as we speak because I see snippets of people researching online who are getting bits and pieces correct...but once you understand their sign language with sticks then you can literally follow them everywhere....from feeding to Denning to Observing to Farming....Bigfoot don't understand that we can figure out their stick language...they know for a 110% certainty that all other animals cannot....so they are very very vulnerable which is why it is so ridiculously easy to find where they live and operate.

Now I can simply look for specific signs and then pretty much just walk right up to their structures....I can find their berry patches and their Gardens....I can find their Dens and their Observation Posts.... and I do not mean wander around the Forest searching....not at all... I mean simply walk through the Forest reading their sign language and going straight to where they have been....by their own directions.

Not only can I do this where I live but I can do it anywhere because they are consistant in what they do wherever they are living.

I watch certain videos and am horrified at how naïve people are.. they are literally in some cases surrounded by intense levels of BIGFOOT SIGN and they are filming and dealing with Bigfoots WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING IT TO BE TRUE.....that is very very dangerous...you cannot respect them until you know they are real...jesus I see people taking their kids to firmly established habituation areas...its sheer insanity....

It is a simple reality that in North America you can pretty much find any River Valley System of Ravines and Valleys and there will be Bigfoot living there if the weather and food supply is sufficient.....I am not joking either...you DO NOT HAVE TO SEARCH …. you simply have to go and find.....so the discussion is basically over...if I had a Team to come with me and someone footed the bill...it would be childsplay to follow Bigfoot right across the freaking Continent....literally EVERYHERE...we would not really be searching we would be VISITING....there is a big difference....for example I live in a Major city of a million people and there are Bigfoot all around my area Urban Bigfoot....you do NOT have to go to the boondocks that's not how you find them its all about food food food.... and cover...how many places do you really think a 12 foot male Bigfoot is going to be able to comfortably live in without being seen frequently enough to end up hunted or shot?....and this is why its so easy to find them...because we are dealing with a physical reality that leaves physical impacts wherever it goes....they are very limited in where they can live but deniers promote that they have millions and millions of hectares of wild land to live in....lol....lol...lol...that is laughable....there is only one Florida......lol...one California.... these Clans choose to live close to us for the same reasons we chose to live where we do...comfort food ease of living....but most of all they are always near us out of curiosity.


Actually math does lie.

a reply to: paulgt3

You make some interesting points that tend to get looked over when people make the claim "man in an ape suit". Even today people in "ape suits" making fake videos jump out as fakery 99% of the time, the Pattison-Gimlin video still causes discussions to this day.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Gigantopithecus existed as early as 100,000 years ago and reached heights of 12 feet and weighed up to 900 lbs.

Coelacanths were supposed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago and yet they were rediscovered in 1938 and are still photographed today off the coast of Sodwana Bay.

Why do people find it impossible to believe Sasquatch could be nothing more than a hold over organism from the past when we have the very proof of supposed extinct fossils still alive today?

Not saying this to you specifically but it's a lack of education for most people who are too wrapped up in the Hollywood stories of Sasquatch to the point where they become cognitively dissonant.

a reply to: 1point92AU

THEY KNOW….ACADEMIA KNOWS,LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOW,fEDERAL pARK rANGERS KNOW,GENERIC PEOPLE KNOW,THE PROBLEM IS THE BOOKS LIKE 411 ALSO TELL US THOUSANDS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY SATANISTS AND BIGFOOT....WHO WILL ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE DEATHS...OF COURSE ANY FOREKNOWLEDGE WILL MEAN CONVICTING ONESELF OF BEING ACCOUNTABLE.

JUST LIKE WITH ALIEN ABDUCTIONS , OUR GOVERNMENTS KNOW BUT WILL NOT ACCEPT LIABILITY ON ANY LEVEL BECAUSE THESE ARE NOW HISTORIC LIES.

Those who have been victimised will continue to be victimised.....no one has the guts to make change.....no one has the guts to stand up and fight for anything that isnt rainbow colored.....I am not sure what example I would use if I hadn't read of Soddom and Gomorrah... but that's where we are right now in the developed world.

a reply to: 1point92AU

Because people keep claiming to see them in areas that are populated, and something that big would be known about unless it was in a place humans rarely if ever traveled.

So yes, it is possible something exists we don't know about ... but then we wouldn't have all these grainy crappy videos/photos.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 1point92AU

Because people keep claiming to see them in areas that are populated, and something that big would be known about unless it was in a place humans rarely if ever traveled.

That's illogical thinking. The coelacanth I referenced in my original post was caught purely by accident in a fisherman's net in 1938. Had he not caught it we may never have known they still existed. Yet exit they do and did regardless of our awareness of them.

I don't recall any sightings of Sasquatch mentioned anywhere there was not at least some access to a densely vegetated forest nearby. I've read about sightings inside suburban neighborhoods from time to time and while some of those sighting could simply be hoaxes I have seen sightings in urban areas that are probable based on the proximity of a forest.

If you download the BFRO sightings overlay into Google Earth you can see a collection of sightings all across the US. If you zoom in and look at the locations where sightings were reported you can see a clear pathway where these beings can move undetected for the most part.

a reply to: 1point92AU

What does the coelacanth who lives underwater where people don't live have to do with Bigfoot? Other than the fact we have actual pictures of it even though it's not walking around our backyard.

Like the giganto, the coelacanth was thought to be extinct. But in reality, they are not.
- Captain Obvious

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 1point92AU

What does the coelacanth who lives underwater where people don't live have to do with Bigfoot? Other than the fact we have actual pictures of it even though it's not walking around our backyard.

Dude, really? It has nothing to do with the coelacanth. It has to do with your illogical thinking that the only possible way something can exist is ONLY if it is discovered. I used the discovery of the coelacanth as a perfect example to prove your way of thinking is illogical.

Your illogical thinking is that somehow people who make claims of Sasquatch sightings in higher population dense areas is somehow untrue because "something that big would be known about". How exactly?

I would have never known my house was being cased by thieves until I installed an external surveillance system that is motion activated. Now anytime anyone comes within a defined distance of my property I receive an alert. Yet, I never would have known they were there to begin with. And yet they were.

Still looks real, even more so with the slowed down footage, as for the “one of the guys came forward and said it was a fake” argument, that was Bob Hieronimus and he was just looking for fame/cash.

The giveaway with the Patterson film is the butt muscle. The glutes. Getting that muscle to contract as it lifts / pulls its massive right leg forward would be essentially impossible with a suit. Plainly visible. Often overlooked.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah, it definitely looks like muscle moving as "Pattie" walks away and it doesn't appear to sag around the top of the legs.
I recently caught Beneath the Planet of the Apes on TV and there was a scene with Dr Zaius and Ursus, these were the main Gorilla and Orangutan characters, both apes were in a steam room. The scene screamed "men in baggy fur suits" and wasn't a patch on "Pattie" and that movie was from 1970. The Patterson-Gimlin film is from 1967, a few years before it.

For anyone who has not seen it yet, here is Patty in r e a l s l o w m o t i o n .

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: paulgt3

Those are great points but it still is possible. Does the de-stabilizing and adding of HD create a different image than the original? Meaning: does the original look like a guy in a costume or does the edited version look like an unknown being?

There are more and older ape costumes than Planet of the Apes '68....if these guys were broke they could have stole one. History of cinema ape costumes

Steve from howtohunt.com recently said on YouTube that the Patterson video is proof of Big Foot because it can't be duplicated. I was surprised he is all in on the Patterson video so it sparked my interest again. I really enjoy his stories by the way.