The Patterson-Gimlin Film: An Analysis

Just read/saw this on Anomaly Magazine site.

This guy Noah David Henson, did IMHO a great job on this subject and I think he might be right on the money.

What do you folks think?

I think bigfoot was/is a real unknown creature.

Go here and check it out! www.anomalymagazine.com...

[edit on 3-3-2009 by RUFFREADY]

I've seen this before.
If you look closely you can see real muscle and bone structure underneath the fur way too accurate for a man in an ape suit. Also why fake a Bigfoot and make it female?

This Bigfoot has breasts

Here is another analysis of the video I'm looking for another one that goes into much more detail in scientific terms.

Originally posted by SLAYER69



I've seen this before.
If you look closely you can see real muscle and bone structure underneath the fur way too accurate for a man in an ape suit. Also why fake a Bigfoot and make it female?

This Bigfoot has breasts

Edit:- Oo ok they do mention the hernia bulge (I should watch before commenting )

Wow ive always believed in the Patterson footage but seeing that sped up little gif there, just look at the way the hair on the upper thigh bounces when the foot impacts the ground during the stride.

I mean that aint no damn monkey suit, thats thick flesh and real skin attached to it. Heck I doubt you'd be able to do anything like that without at least a skin tight suit with silicon gel packs padding out everything.

Not sure if the video mentions it but on the "Bigfoot Legend meets Science" doco I believe it mentions that one of the upper thigh muscles bulges and pops out during the stride , not sure what the medical term was for it but they said it would have been due to an injury at some time. But all I can say is no suit could mimic that sort of thing, and I doubt someone would even think of attempting to make a suit imitating such an injury (opps wasnt an injury).

Think ill watch this footage even though I dont need convincing

Edit:- Hmm dont quite agree with Bindernagel about sticking the Patterson footage aside as evidence because it causes to many issues with people who think its been debunked... i mean evidence is evidence and its damn good evidence, regardless of what ignorant people believe. To me its our responsibility to go on and tell them, "No it hasnt been debunked as fake", and then go on to tell them why it hasnt been. Otherwise all you have is a person who goes away not being any the wiser who keeps on thinking that Bigfoot believers and researchers are nutty foot loops who believe in fakes, and for me casts while good are just as easily dismissed by dis-interested people as the Patterson footage would be, and in alot of peoples minds faking a print would be alot more easier to boot than a guy in a monkey suit..


[edit on 3-3-2009 by BigfootNZ]

reply to post by BigfootNZ


Well not only that look at the way it turns its head like a gorilla not a human its chin is set into it's chest and it has to turn its whole upper torso to look back at Paterson also stop the footage every so often and look at the length of it's forearm they are huge and much longer than a man in an ape suit.

I think this video footage is of the real deal.

Could it be:

1) A human-ape hybrid?
2) A genetically mutated human?
3) An unknown ape species?
4) A Djinn that shape-shifted into a beast?

HOLD ON:

It's bum is a bit weird?! Doesn't seem to move much at all. Looks like is a giant bum bag.

ALSO:

What about the possibility of gluing fur to a really heavily built large man? That would show the muscle definition and movement too!!!!!!!

ALSO:

The soles of his feet are WHITE [unlike apes that are black]. Dark skinned humans - the soles of the feet are totally different shade to rest of body [much much lighter]. So that perhaps indicates that he is more similar to humans?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Jinni]

reply to post by Jinni.
Or it could simply be a few of these or a distant cousin still alive and hanging around out there

Wiki

Gigantopithecus is an extinct genus of ape that existed from roughly one million years to as recently as three-hundred thousand years ago,[1] in what is now China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as several hominid species.[2] The fossil record suggests that the Gigantopithecus blacki species were the largest apes that ever lived, standing up to 3 metres (9.8 ft) and weighing up to 540 kilograms (1,200 lb).[1][3][4]

It's bum is a bit weird?! Doesn't seem to move much at all. Looks like is a giant bum bag.

ALSO:

What about the possibility of gluing fur to a really heavily built large man? That would show the muscle definition and movement too!!!!!!!

ALSO:

The soles of his feet are WHITE [unlike apes that are black]. Dark skinned humans - the soles of the feet are totally different shade to rest of body [much much lighter]. So that perhaps indicates that he is more similar to humans?

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Jinni]

I believe there was a write up I read somewhere dealing with it that mentions about the tush, I mean it is possible its a genuine anatomical feature for them, hairy spare tire The main thing is on a human that part of your lower back and upper butt cheek dont really move much at all, and in the footage you can see if giggle a bit with the foots impact. So while odd, I dont think its anything out of the ordinary personally.

And with the hair glued to a muscular man, could be, thing is I think they always try to pass the guy off in the suit as Gimlin?... thing is was Gimlin that sort of shape and that buff. Dont know, seriously doubt it either way.

As for the feet color take a look at what the Patterson Bigfoots walking in, a river bed, now take off your shoes and go walk on a black or white sand beach or a river bed like that in the footage and then take a look at the soles of your feet... I assure you they wont be pink also id say that being as heavy as a Sasquatch can be, the wear and tear on their feet must be considerable which would definitely have an effect the color of the soles of your feet, although in a way that would make em darker when i think about it. Although the "moist dust and dirt stuck to the soles" still stands in terms of the difference in color (Do apes place their feet totally flat when knuckle walking?)

Have they ever found a complete skeleton for Gigantopithecus or just its jaw and teeth?, since they always show it walking or standing like an ape to suggest it was just a BIG ape, when if it is or was a relative of the modern Sasquatch for all we know it could have walked up right on two legs. Kinda like how skeletons of Iguanadons and T-rexs where always displayed wrong for decades... just an irk I have.

After studying all the evidence for a couple of years I have t say this footage is the real thing.

All the test's that have been carried out, and all the analysis' have yet to debunk this.

Thanks OP, I love researching BF even though I live in the U.K and the closest I'll see is when I get out of bed in the morning...

I do believe bigfoot exists but I found some videos which confirm some things for me. There are some things which make me feel it's a man made suit. The human looking breasts look fake but the main thing is the excessive hair in the buttock and hip area. You can see the leg moves independently of the hip, which looks very fake. The back looks very real. You gotta give props to whoever made it. It's an incredible job for 1967.
Also it walks just like the dude in the videos who claims he was the one. The arm swing looks too human.

Watch all 3 videos especially 3.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Sargoth]

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Sargoth]

What I really want to see is a modern day studio special effects crew attempt to recreate it.

There have been several attempts by documentaries to recreate the footage, and all have been utter failures. They barely resemble it, and the creatures definition and movement are nowhere near as realistic.

With all the tech we have today you'd think if it was hoaxed all those years ago by a couple of non-professionals, a single under-qualified effects technician would be able to do it with today's CG and animatronics.

Originally posted by Jinni


The soles of his feet are WHITE [unlike apes that are black]. Dark skinned humans - the soles of the feet are totally different shade to rest of body [much much lighter]. So that perhaps indicates that he is more similar to humans?

Well it could simply be the sand that it's walking on.

I've seen something somewhere...

They had an Olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements and posture.

The athlete couldn't physically move the way the creature in the Patterson footage moved.

And he WAS NOT in a bulky suit.

I'm 98% convinced this is the real Bigfoot.

Does anyone know where I can download a high-res digital version of the original video?

Cheers,

I read somewhere that the suit was originally made for that old Star Trek epidode where Spock and others are trapped in a shuttle craft with huge apes all around.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Unless the fakers had moobz and therefore would be prone to do so by self-similarity.

reply to post by Sargoth


Yeah that expose is great. Fake heel, fake hips. Moobz.

Breaking: Patty's "herniated muscle" the result of image artifacts

thought I'd bring this to youse guys (and womens) attention. It seems that theres a problem with the bulge (in the leg)

a new look at the film, that made Bigfoot famous. go here for the news bigfootevidence.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Shakezoola
I've seen something somewhere...

They had an Olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements and posture.

The athlete couldn't physically move the way the creature in the Patterson footage moved.

And he WAS NOT in a bulky suit.

I'm 98% convinced this is the real Bigfoot.

I believe you're thinking of the "memorial day" (1996 I believe) video of a suppossed bigfoot that was running across a clearing in the distance. They did a show and had an Olympic runner try to duplicate the time across the same exact place. He wasn't able to do it.

Bill Munns report themunnsreport.com... I guess will hear more about this soon. If this turns out to be true and the "one" copy or such shows "film artifacts" well, this will change the whole ball of wax.

"the so-called herniated muscle is the result of image artificats on one particular copy in John Green's collection, which LMS people scanned for the LMS video. If the artifact is in the Noll frames, that's because Noll also used the green copy for his frame scans. It is not in Copy 8 made from the original by ANE company, and it's not in the Patterson Archive copy which was made by Roger before loaning the original to Green and Dahinden so Canawest Labs could made their copy master and subsequent print copies.

He spent a long time in his report..now I wonder what will become of it?