Breaking: Romanian Bigfoot Photos

Cheesey at best.

I count 4 toes on the foot facing us (quite clean I might add), with a lot of 'foot' left.

He could be Pidgeon toed I guess



reply to post by jbondo



Not responding to you Jbondo, just using your post as reference (without quoting it all).
Yes he did rent the camera to film BF, he also (from memory) was going to the spot where BF footprints were recently found.

Would make perfect sense to have some type of method to record your findings wouldn't it?

No one to this date has been able to disprove the video... many have tried, many have not bothered, but it still doesn't make it fake.

reply to post by Grailkeeper


Your memory is correct Grail!

Seems those that are pro-authentic come up with new supportive evidence almost every year while those that are pro-hoax do nothing more than bring up the same old arguments.

I don't think I could count the number of skeptics that set out to prove the film a fake only to find that they can't, often inadvertently compiling even more evidence to the contrary.

It looks real to me, it's a conspiracy to keep it quiet on ATS because it proves Evolution that man came from hairy men in the woods.

How can it be fake? Do they actually have fake suits in Russia and do they make Hollywood movies to be able to make such fake creations? Wake up people, hairy Russian bigfoots are on their way.

reply to post by testrat


The Patterson footage is real not fake, these pictures are very badly faked.

But it did give me an idea for a great line of winter wear bassed on Bigfoot.
Full body fur suits with matching conical head tooke and boots.

reply to post by The time lord


How in the world does it prove evolution? If you think that way then why don't you just say monkeys prove evolution?

Originally posted by jbondo
reply to post by testrat

 

Badge, maybe I'm misunderstanding but what makes you think that BF could drop to all fours and run away if they are bipedal?

Good question. Current thought is that it appears to be unlikely that the P-G Bigfoot has descended from Gigantopithecus, as some might have thought (pure conjecture, mostly):



Note the image above of G. Blacki. (this is also a guess, b/c all we have is the Jawbone and some teeth, that I'm aware. LOL)

What I was trying to get at is the lack of a 'wild', or reactionary, or quick reflexive movement that is seen in other large animals that give subtle cues as to its 'realness'.

There is one shot in the PG film where it is suggested because you can see the gluteal fold from one frame to another, making it look like he dropped to all fours, going over slight rise, but it is disputed.

Another cue is the way a horse will shake his skin, 'the quivers', which is due to fascial musculature. This is also sometimes seen in large animals, and in addition to the lack of breast sway when the creature turns, there is no evidence of this, though the resolution might not be good enough to show it.

Again, I'm just wildly conjecturing, looking for something like that which is subtle, but distinct.

However the relatively small size of the head just struck me when someone over on the BF forums mentioned that.

Bear in mind that the image size of the PG BF is onlly 1.5-1.6mm on the actual film stock. So many of the 'effects' we think we see are somewhat indistinguishable from artifact due to various enlargements. In fact when they transfered the film to a different process they discovered that someone had apparently drawn in a hand on the end of the trailing right arm. So it's difficult to gather much detail from that footage.

2 cents...


[edit on 7-3-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

Not responding to you Jbondo, just using your post as reference (without quoting it all).
Yes he did rent the camera to film BF, he also (from memory) was going to the spot where BF footprints were recently found.

Would make perfect sense to have some type of method to record your findings wouldn't it?

There's one interview where Gimlin mentions that Patterson had practiced quickly drawing the camera from his saddle bags several times on the way out to Bluff Creek. The suggestion was that he was anticipating something, though Gimlin does not imply that.

In addition, their stories don't match wrt his horse falling over. Patterson says the horse fell over and crushed the stirrup, and he got up, got around to the other side and got the camera out.

Gimlin has said repeatedly not in contradiction, necessarily, that Patterson's horse did not fall over.

Make of it what you will.

Originally posted by The time lord
It looks real to me, it's a conspiracy to keep it quiet on ATS because it proves Evolution that man came from hairy men in the woods.

Actually that's an imprecise way of putting it.

The actual phrase should be 'we seem share a common ancestor', thinking of it as the branches of a tree.

There's some thought now that Giganto, Apes, Men may have shared parallel branches, going by available DNA evidence:



I adapted this common diagram to suggest where Gigantopithecus Blacki might be placed. Who knows where a P-G type BF might appear?

As you can see we share the most with Chimps, then with Apes, then Orangs. You have to go back much further to find a common ancestor with the Gibbons (New world monkeys).

Originally posted by testrat
I saw these. It never really states the source of the photos. Maybe I missed it. This costume is worse than the Patterson costume. Still I am sure someone will think they are real.

Patty was not a costume. Every expert who has ever studied the film corroborates that Patty was not a man in a costume.

This was a man in a costume. And an obvious one at that.

If people can't tell the difference between Patty and this after 40 plus years?

Originally posted by The time lord
It looks real to me, it's a conspiracy to keep it quiet on ATS because it proves Evolution that man came from hairy men in the woods.

How can it be fake? Do they actually have fake suits in Russia and do they make Hollywood movies to be able to make such fake creations? Wake up people, hairy Russian bigfoots are on their way.

Hay people was only joking sorry my sense of humour may not have come across in 2-D mode of writing.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Look at the size of this thing to the tree it is behind in pic 2 and 3. Its a action figure, not a man in a outfit. Are you as sure that the patterson video is not a suit, as much as you are sure this one is?

The camera is out of focus on it and tree on pic 2, yet the background is in focus. The oppisite in pic 3, this tells me it is awfully close to that tree trunk. IF this is bigfoot then I am more impressed by the size of the tree, youd think its be a great redwood...



[edit on 13-3-2008 by mindping]

Originally posted by Badge01
The interesting thing about the Patterson-Gimlin footage, is every time you seem to close in on the solution, something else seems to crop up that makes one wonder.

One thing that always struck me about the 'fakeness', is the lack of movement in the torso and the lack of movement of the breasts.
.

It seems that most people in this thread believe the Patterson film is real, which is fine. It does fit the decription of what bigfoot should look like. I guess its only me and badge that have our doubts.

The one thing that always jumped out at me, was the feet. If you click on this link, and scroll down a bit to the Patterson tracks you can see what I mean. Stop at the picture where the creature has his back turned and there is a adjacent footprint. (at work and little lazy to post it in the thread)

Look how pearly white the soul of the foot is. Its whiter than a humans foot. This to me, it looks like a brand new costume. Then look at the footprint. It looks like a giant human footprint. Which can be easily duplicated. If you were to campare this print, with one print that was found in Nepal this year of the Yeti (once again lazy). They look nothing a like. I believe the one in Nepal to be real.

Look at the print, it is obvious there is earth that is coming upward when this 'thing' stepped in mud. I'm sure someone has a reason why this is happened. Such as some unique bone structure or something. But for anyone that has ever had their foot stuck in mud before, think about where the force is when you try and get unstuck. It is right in the middle of your foot. Here is sort-of a weak example of what I mean. Its bad I know, but there is a upward movement of earth right in the middle of this guys footprint. I think in the Patterson film someone is wearing a oversized shoe, print, whatever, and that when they stepped in mud they needed to pull their foot up, just a little. This caused a suction force in the middle of the foot.

But what do I know...


[edit on 13-3-2008 by testrat]