Patersons Fakes....

look at the top 2 pics in this link....the 2 bigfoot is really some1 who used photoshop or somthing and made a ape/human in both pictures....look at the spot where its leg hits the water, compare it to where the other leg getgs hidden behind a tree....look at there hands, in the exact same position....look at the way the light hits its ribs, in the exact spot on each photo...that means if these photos are fakes then all of his stuff is most likely fake....www.bfro.net...

here this will work better www.bfro.net... i think.. i dont no how 2 add link....sry

Actually, there is no photoshopping on those pics. There is actually some very compelling evidence that shows that this may have indeed been real footage. Go to the discovery Channels video archives and order the recent scientific documentary and see for yourself.

look specificly at the top 2 pictures...they are both the same exact creature..i dont maine same one i mean its like some1 took a picture of a guy in a site and edited in both of those pictures. look at the and see that the one in the forest is just a smaller version of the other 1

You seem like someone really interested in Bigfoot. If that's the case, you should be aware that the Patterson film is widely known, and was shot back in the 60's. Long before Photoshop or any kind of computer assisted fraud was available.

Yes, the top two pictures are the same. The second one is a close-up of the first. This was done on purpose to show the enhancements available through the new technology.

Debunk these if you can, but learn what they are first.

i kinda was wondering if they did have all that fancy crap back then..i thought they mustve if those 2 pics were the same...if this was proven to show it was then i guess he is not a fake and i feel like a dum @ss for posting in big letters "Patersons Fake" lol lmao

Water? It looks to me like the "creature" is in a rocky clearing with dead trees and ... well... rocks. That doesn't look like a river or anything to me. There are many rocky outcroppings like that in the mid-west US and many of them are huge slabs of granite which can appear blye-gray at times, especially with lichen on them. Besides, the "creature" does not appear to be wet at all, even around the bottom of it's legs... if someone went through all that trouble to "fake" the images, then I don't think they would have missed such a mundane detail. My conclusion is that the picture is fake if that's water, but it's probably real otherwise.

2 me it looked like his feet were going into water on the closeup...btw where was this supose to have taken place???northwest right??thats cool if it is cause i live there

The third one, to me, looks like the allleged bigfoot is in exactly the same position as the first/second. Just my worthless opinion, though.

'Bigfoot' Isn't walking thru a river in any of these frames.
just thought u aughta know.

god of chaos and destruction..i thought ud b brighter(jk)
it looks exactly like water in the second picture tho..i dont no how u dont c it...oh well maybe im going blind
BIGFOOT

These pictures comes from the original movie! I've seen it several times and it looks quite stunning...

So no Photoshop or 'its the same 3D model, just turned around!' guys...

Try finding it, and see for yourself..

FYI, when Mr. Patterson died, his will stated to reveal to everyone that is was a hoax. His friend wore the suit. I believe it was Gimlin who wore the suit. I am looking for a link and will post when I find it.

How many times will we go over the same thing?

Ok well heres a site on bigfoot it has audio from people talking about it and some info on the Patterson film that you might want to hear! BIGFOOT use the search function toward the top to find more info on this film because i know for a fact some of the memmbers talked about it. Heres the link on the audio and you should listen to it if your so interested click here Good luck, Shadow

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by ShadowMan]

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by ShadowMan]

Um patersons will did not say it was a hoax. Whoever you heard that form is lying.

How many different lame versions of patersons death/bigfoot hoax are we going to see?

1) Pattersons will said it was a hoax!
2) Patterson said just before he died, that it was a hoax
3) Patterson told his kids to say that when he died it was all a hoax.
4) Pattersons childrend showed proof of the bigfoot hoax with the authentic wooden feet used to make bigfoot tracks, as instructed by him after he died. (Which btw, those wooden feet match NO bigfoot foot print casts.. nice try doobers)


OMG U GUYZ!! I Just heard patterson killed himself and didn't dy of natural casues. Insted he slit his rists and rote in blud on teh walz that he hoacksed bigfoot!!


If patterson actually put that in his will it would have appeared in more credible news sources than the few tabloids it hit there buddy.

Originally posted by EWom
Um patersons will did not say it was a hoax. Whoever you heard that form is lying.

Funny, I heard that he said it was a hoax too, actually.

You sure you arent a firm Bigfoot believer?

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Thain Esh Kelch]

I'm a firm bigfoot believer. I see no reason not to believe it. The debunking attempts of people have been debunked many times, and there are tons of threads on this board that discuss that.

Here are some links for reference that the film is not fake.
www.bfro.net...
www.bfro.net...

You can also use the ATS search engine to find many other "Patterson fake" threads.

Some of you may be confusing the 1967 Patterson film of Bigfoot filmed as the creature was leaving the dry creek bed, with the debunking of the incident of 1958 that coined the term "Bigfoot" by the reporter to first film the 16 inch wooden prints layed down by Ray L Wallace who at the time said see saw a large creature and offered the prints as proof in Humbolt County, California. Wallace recanted on his death bed at the age of 84.

To my knowlege the Patterson film is still considered real by a lot of people based on the motion of the animals body inasmuch that the animal moves his torso with his head when turning to look at the direction of the camera, something large known apes do but humans do not. Humans just move their head. Also it has been shown that if it were a suit then it was very large making it very heavy and hard to minipulate the extremities. The animals walk has also shown to be close to that of a large primate and difficult for a human in a large suit to duplicate.

I think it is real. It has been a while since I studied the matter in detail though.

One of my cousins works at the Ft. Worth zoo. A while ago I spent a summer at their house and spent most of my days at the zoo for fun. I loved watching the gorillas and the monkeys the most and always remembered the weird way they walked. The weirdest thing though is that they couldn't turn their heads without having to turn almost all of their upper body.

This same 'weird' walk I see in the Patterson film. Not just that, but if you download the film and watch you will see that when it turns it head it uses almost all of it's upper body as well, just like a gorilla. If it is faked, the faker had a good knowledge of how gorillas/big apes move.

There is yet another idea to debunk the would be debunkers, and I provided a link to it a few posts back. The arm is much longer than a humans, and one could assume that some kind of prosthesis was used to elongate the arm. But there is one flaw, the length of the arm in proportion to where the elbow is looks natural. There's no way you could get this bending affect by using an elongated arm under the "suit." The arm would be bending in the person's forearm, so theres no way to reproduce the bending affect.

That's a very basic description of the theory, but if you check out the link it'll explain much better.