Patterson Bigfoot Footage Stabilized and Analyzed (from ATSNN)

I'm not saying the shoulder turn proves it real i'm saying that if you can totally disprove it from the color of the feet then look at the other charictaristics that make it look more primate. And by the way you may turn your shoulders when you look at something but from the angle of the camera to the creature it shouldn't have turned its body the way it did if it were human.

Howdy folks...

Yea that was posted here a few months back...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the debunkers were debunked there as well...

And nobody still can explain, how in 1967, he was able to create a suit that good ( heck, at the time hollywood couldn't do it ), with little monetary means ( the guy wasn't rich)...

As a matter of fact ( I'll have to find the link ), there are 2 instititions, offering $100,000 each for someone who can do it with 1967 tech....

Heck if he did hoax it, he could have made a lot more money denounceing it as a hoax, and went to work for Hollywood's special effects dept...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
And nobody still can explain, how in 1967, he was able to create a suit that good ( heck, at the time hollywood couldn't do it ), with little monetary means ( the guy wasn't rich)...

Heck if he did hoax it, he could have made a lot more money denounceing it as a hoax, and went to work for Hollywood's special effects dept...

This is complete sensationalization. In 1968, the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was released. I don't think I should have to say much more about what "Hollywood" was capable of in the late 60's, but I will continue anyways.

In 1969, man landed on the moon. Read about the technology of the space suits we used here.

A hairy monkey suit is kind of pale in comparison, no?

Anyways, the burden of proof here is on the believers. You ask me to explain how a guy made a suit like that in 1967? No.

Zip

Yep...

And what kind of budget did the makers of 2001 have ??

A lot more than Patterson had...

... And it shows.

The suit was probably destroyed afterwards because it was evidence of fakery. Read the WikiPedia article about the film if you want to read several pages testifying to what a total freakin' scam artist Patterson was. His partner, who was present at the filming, said before he died that basically he thinks Patterson tricked him, which in my estimation is a way for him to admit that it's a hoax without admitting his own several decades worth of lying and deception. Funny how the human mind works to divulge secrets but still protect itself.

Anyways, the list of inconsistencies and testaments to the bad moral character of Patterson span several pages, as I said. Please read it for yourself.

Zip

Just one more thing... The full version of the film is 53 seconds long, does anyone have a link for it? It would help.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot
How does it go in Ronin? "If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt."

Well, I have doubts that this is a real creature in the video, and therefore, I have no doubt that this is a man in a suit.

I don't know about the big foot footage, because I've never read into this. But let me comment on this phrase, it's silly and purely based on assumption. Furthermore it's just about the furthest way from reaching to a succesful debunking on whatever material or phenomena that is discussed.

A debunking based on an assumption is never a valid debunking.

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by Zipdot
How does it go in Ronin? "If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt."

Well, I have doubts that this is a real creature in the video, and therefore, I have no doubt that this is a man in a suit.

I don't know about the big foot footage, because I've never read into this. But let me comment on this phrase, it's silly and purely based on assumption. Furthermore it's just about the furthest way from reaching to a succesful debunking on whatever material or phenomena that is discussed.

A debunking based on an assumption is never a valid debunking.

Thanks, try reading my entire posts next time, Bandit.

an·cil·lar·y
adj.
Of secondary importance: “For Degas, sculpture was never more than ancillary to his painting” (Herbert Read).

Zip

Yep I read them...

I guess you stopped there huh?

If you read a littel further you would have seen these...

Dmitri Donskoy
Anthropologist David Daegling reports that the only formal academic study of the Patterson film was conducted by Dmitri Donskoy of Moscow’s Darwin Museum. (Daegling, 45) Krantz describes Donskoy’s conclusion as being that the film depicts “a very massive animal that is definitely not a human being.” (Krantz, 92)

Grieves noted that "I can see the muscle masses in the appropriate places ... If it is a fake, it is an extremely clever one." (Hunter and Dahinden, 120) Also like Krantz, Greive thought the figure's shoulder's were quite broad. He notes that a tall human is consistent with the figure's height, but also notes that for a tall human, "The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours."[2] (home.clara.net...)

Grover Krantz
Krantz offered an in-depth examination of the Patterson film. (Krantz, 87 - 124) He concluded the film depicts a genuine, unknown creature, citing the following factors, among others:

Primarily, Krantz’s argument is based on a detailed analysis of the figure’s stride, center of gravity, and biomechanics. Krantz argues that the creature’s leg and foot motions are quite different from a human’s and could not have been duplicated by a person wearing a suit.

Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders--which he estimated at about three feet across--arguing there was no way a suited person could mimic this and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film.

Krantz and others have noted naturalistic-looking musculature ( Hunter and Dahinden note that ”the bottom of the figure’s head seems to become part of the heavy back and shoulder muscles ... the muscles of the buttocks were distinct” Hunter and Dahinden, 114) visible as the creature moved, arguing this would be highly difficult or impossible to fake.

Krantz also interviewed Patterson extensively, and as noted below, thought Patterson lacked the technical skill and knowledge needed to create such a realistic-looking costume.

Krantz reports that in 1969 John Green (who at one point owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film) interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who after viewing the Patterson film, asserted “that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film.”(Krantz, 93) Krantz argues that if Disney personnel (among the best special effects experts of their era) were unable to duplicate the film, there’s little liklihood that Patterson could have done so. (Krantz, 121)

More recently, Krantz showed the film to Gordon Valient, a researcher for Nike shoes, who he says “made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see.” (ibid

en.wikipedia.org...

I could go on and on, on the quotes but might get hit with an excessive quoting...

But you see, if Disney coundn't do it at the time, how could Patterson ??

Originally posted by Zipdot
If we apply the Occam's Razor approach to this, then this is a man in a monkey suit until we catch a live or dead one. Until then, all speculation is absolutely meaningless.

Occam's Razor is merely our way of making ourselves feel more secure by convincing ourselves that the universe will fit into the rigid boundaries that we have dictated for it. It is also the unrelenting skeptic's favourite reference when attempting to appear intellectual amidst his or her closed mindedness. It is Occam's razor which led men to be confident in their belief's that the universe revolved around the Earth, and to resist all hypotheses to the contrary. In order for scientific exploration to progress, true observation should be neutral, unfettered by prior expectations and prejudices, and equally open to all possibilities. That being said, I'm pretty sure this is a guy in a monkey suit.

As to the comment earlier on why haven't we found a skeleton...has even one person here truthfully ever found a bear skeleton?

As for the suit idea, what about the extremely long arms? If you think they extended the arms with sticks (which need to be almost a foot long) then how do you account for the position of the elbow?

I guess I get suprised by the dubunkers on this who just wave their hand "voila it's a hoax" when many experts in anthropology and primatology have stated that due to the movements, there is just no way it is a man in a suit.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
As to the comment earlier on why haven't we found a skeleton...has even one person here truthfully ever found a bear skeleton?

nope, but I've seen 'em with my own two eyes ! we get little ol black bears arounf here, 125-175 pounders....mostly reduced to rummaging in trash cans, kinda sad actually....

I'm torn on the film myself. I've noticed the musculature before, and the way the head and shoulders fit together so nicely....even chewbacca's suit its obvious there are two parts, the mask/hood and the body suit

but

the dude (dudette ?) doesn't react to a horse rearing up with a man on it !! it just goes against my gut...

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
...and the smirking chimp

I'm getting a little tired of cheap shots at the President regarding his facial expressions, which by the way, are consistent with human facial expressions found to be universal.

But, while we are comparing chiimps to politicians, how about these:



[edit on 05/5/3 by GradyPhilpott]

Good question...

Does anyone know how good this creatures eyesight is ?

For all we know it could have very poor eyesight ( like a Rihno), and goes by smell, thought I read some where they were down wind from it...

If they were, and it has poor eyesight, and they were downwind and then couldn't smell then. Then it might not perceive a threat...

Just spectulation though...

Originally posted by Zipdot

Thanks, try reading my entire posts next time, Bandit.

Next assumption.... Of course I read your entire post. Occam's razor is something that shouldn't even be used, because it's based on an assumption as well.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the dude (dudette ?) doesn't react to a horse rearing up with a man on it !! it just goes against my gut...

If I were to turn around and see a man on a horse, I wouldn't run. I'm saying that because they might very well be human in nature. I certainly don't think they fear humans, but they know enough to try and stay hidden. Like I said before, there could be something very unnatural (to us) about their ability to stay hidden.

Peace

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Occam's Razor ... is also the unrelenting skeptic's favourite reference when attempting to appear intellectual amidst his or her closed mindedness.

Hear that? That's the sound of my delicate pseudo-intellectual facade shattering as it hits the floor. I am naked! You have depantsed me in front of everyone!

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I could go on and on, on the quotes but might get hit with an excessive quoting...
But you see, if Disney coundn't do it at the time, how could Patterson ??

There is a reason that this video is not taken seriously by anybody serious. Only scientists with no respect and nothing to lose will attach their names to such affirmative "studies," and even still, the most they will allow is, "It may not be fake." Is this because it's the best they can come up with or is it because they are afraid of a total debunk to come along?

I did read several of those and I got nothing from them besides "one scientist says he sees no butt muscles and another says the butt is firm and scrumptious."

Don't underestimate the artistically and technically-inept Disney executive's desire for the video to be real.

Here, take it from the yocals that might have made it: a reproduction by the supposed original perpetrators:

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

I can't view that video from work, so I offer no opinion. I'd also like to add that I didn't set out to debunk the damn video, I was just expressing why ***I*** didn't think it was real.

Zip

Ahh...yes good ole bobby h and greg long...

Well as far as bobby h goes, it's the money...

"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...

Your video link don't work...

But if it is the one I'm thinking of I'll see if I can find a cap of the "suit"...

Then you can compair the two...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Your video link don't work...

But if it is the one I'm thinking of I'll see if I can find a cap of the "suit"...

Then you can compair the two...

Nothing like some good, old-fashioned teamwork to circumvent corporate network filters.

Zip

Originally posted by AgentGirl
Tree damage, hair, tracks etc... are all physical evidence but where are the skeletons?

I would like you to go out into the woods and bring back a skeleton of a bear. We all know their real, right? So get me one...skeleton of a bear that died naturally.

Well...

Could'nt find a real good quaility of the Bob H video...

But I found a animated .gif, low quaility, but it's goog enough to comapir...
I know it is a link to another forum but it's the only one I can find right now...

www.bigfootforums.com...


Scroll down to post 11...




[edit on 3-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]