Patterson Bigfoot may be bigger than first thought

The famed wildlife artist, 3D computer graphics professional, exhibition creator, digital character lip sync animation software inventor, and cinema special effects designer Bill Munns ...

Munns presents the following after an analysis of the Patterson footage:

1) Munns has constructed a more in-depth modeling of the Bluff Creek filmsite than has ever been created before;

2) He has come to the “conclusion that the lens Roger Patterson had on his camera that day was a 15mm lens, not the generally presumed 25mm lens”;

3) Due to the impact of the lens verification and realization, while analyses are ongoing, the “data accumulated thus far is highly consistent and has yielded preliminary estimates…that…indicates a height of about 7′ 4″ for the figure, as posed, in Frame 352″;


4) Further work by Bill Munns continues, specifically in “establishing a real world dimensional scaling of the model, and establishing a path walkway location of the subject, [which] will allow for a calculation of distance from subject to camera, at various designated frames”;

5) Finally, Munns gladly invites “the test of peer review and independent analysis by others.”

The Munns report

Shorter version: Cryptomundo (Also with an image for comparison.)

The first thing I like about his "findings" is that it's pretty scientific. The guy put in a whole lot of time and effort into his research, and asks peers to review it.

The bottom line is, this (if it's true) changes so many previous theories and studies. Perhaps - in sense - it gives researches the opportunity to re-evaluate what they thought they knew about the Patterson film & Bigfoot. The Patterson footage simply remains an enigma - one of a kind.

I have never made my mind up on the Patterson film. So many pro's and cons through the years.

I guess the one thing I have never been able to get past is the soles on the feet of the apparent Bigfoot. They look flat and smooth surfaced with no visible anatomy such as arches, toes, heels, muscles and so on. This appears to clash with the apparent trace evidence such as footprints.

To be honest they look very similar to what you see on standard gorilla suits.

This simulation sounds interesting for sure... but the issue is that sims can be littered with anomalous data and interpretations that ultimately taint the results.

When I look back on the original footage I don't see a figure standing over 7 feet tall but I will admit that perspectives can be tricky.

Interesting none the less. S&F!

IRM

This footage takes me back to being a kid and watching it with my brother in awe. For this reason, I'd be pleased if it was confirmed as authentic footage of a Bigfoot. It's unfortunate that hoaxers have taken away the joy and wonder and replaced them with automatic doubts and jaded cynicism

Whatever the truth of the video, nobody has ever definitively nailed it as real or hoax. If we're now talking about 7' 4", it lends itself to the 'real' side of things purely because a 7'4" gorilla costume would stay on the clothes rack for a long time. Then again, it could be made specially for the video? Round and round we go again....

The part that makes me think it is real is the creature had breasts to make it a female. No man who was going to fake this would of thought of that, let alone make them so real. The stride also does not look faked.

Other analysis has found muscle movement, something that could not be faked with a suit or costume. I am among the few who will state the film is the real deal.

reply to post by Gemwolf


My problem with the Patterson footage, that makes me question its authenticity is that this footage was taken 1967 by men who said they were going out to look for bigfoot. These guys say, "hey, lets go look for bigfoot" and bang, they get the footage they wanted.

In 1967 the number of people who had a video camera was much much smaller than it is today. And the number of people today that are actively looking for bigfoot with much better cameras and technology is greater than it has ever been and there has not been a video since this one to show this much footage of "bigfoot".

How is it that these guys go out on their first expedition with a super 8 and capture this video footage, when countless others since have been spending huge amounts of time and money and technology to attempt to get a video that is even close to this and none have. There really arent any videos that i can remember seeing that have anything close to the length or clarity of this classic video. Except for the obvious fakes and reproductions.

I would love for this video to be real and it would be amazing if bigfoot were real and I will not discount the possibiltity but as of yet there is really not any proof of the existence, except for eye witness accounts and studies have shown that we humans are terrible eye witnesses.

Of course the first thing that I did was check out Cryptomundo and Loren Coleman to see what he had to say. No commentary yet, really.

Looks like Cryptomundo will be following it, though.

The verdict was out for me until there was some motion stabilizing software used. The thing that makes me think this is real is that if they are going to fake a "Bigfoot" why make a fake "Female" Bigfoot. When nobody at the time could tell from the footage that in fact it's female?

Look at the way it turns it's head above. Note that it has to turn it's whole upper body because it's head sits low on it's shoulders like an ape with it's chin in it's chest like a gorilla and not like a man in a ape suit.

Not only that. Look at the forearms in the above images they are much longer than a mans more like an ape and look at the shoulders and forearms on this one here. Much too long and muscular for a human.


I think it's a Gigantopithecus blacki or a distant relative. Look at this thing it's built like a tank and it's only a female.





[edit on 16-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

[edit on 16-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Patterson footage is real, possibly the only real footage of Bigfoot we have.

As many have said previously, there are features on the creature and nuances about it's movement that make it unlikely to be a hoax.

The arms are the first big sign. For a person to be inside the suit swinging their arms, they would have to have them broken somewhere between the shoulder and elbow to allow for the bend that is produced in the footage.

Watch the black and white stabilized piece above, and the arm closest just after she turns back from facing the camera. Look at the angle.

Not to mention that the arms would have to be dislocated and pulled out of their sockets to reach the distance that the shoulders are apart.

The legs are another interesting feature. On some frames, which have been kindly stabilized above, you can see individual muscles (that are common to all large primates) moving under the skin. These muscles have been identified in the past by scientists. How would someone have hoaxed it to that level of detail all those years ago?

And as Slayer69 brought up, why the breasts? If you are a male going to fake a Bigfoot, surely you would stick to the stereotype of the creature and make it male.

Originally posted by fooffstarr

And as Slayer69 brought up, why the breasts? If you are a male going to fake a Bigfoot, surely you would stick to the stereotype of the creature and make it male.

That has to be the biggest reason for it's authenticity IMO.
Think about it who would go through all that trouble at the time knowing nobody would be able to see that?

I'd like to make a comment on the foot argument. If you've ever seen pictures of a black persons foot or the feet of several tribes (African and others) the soles of their feet almost appear like those of the creature/bigfoot in the video. Many tribesman that walk around barefeet have very thick soles, usually white appearing since the skin is always so dry and flaky. I don't know it's hard to explain but I've seen lots of African tribes people with feet that looked like they had a big pad on their feet.

The fact that the bigfoot in that picture is a female with wiggly/very real breasts is fascinating and amazing. There is no way in hell that these men who were not the most intelligent would have designed something like that. Plus just because this creature was alive back in the 60's does not mean it would have survived much past that time. I mean there was A LOT of very remote wilderness back then in California compared to today. It could very well have lived unseen during those times. Not so nowadays.

If I HAD to pick I'd say it's most definitely real. But I due have some skepticism. The fact that the suit has yet to be produced is also a huge argument for it being real. I mean if this was a hoax it should be very easy to produce the actual suit. I haven't even seen ANY suit that was even close to it from that era either.

People are raising interesting points that still don't nail the footage as conclusive. How many reasons does life give us to go looking at 'monkey boobs?' Thankfully, not many and my ISP has probably just put me on some international 'monkey porn' list My thinking is that the Patterson figure has full and hair-covered breasts. Neither of these facts correlate with primate breasts...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a60009d11344.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba8b090642ba.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0381bb438482.jpg[/atsimg]

Fair enough, we don't have images of Bigfoot to compare. The point here is that, maybe the figure is real because of the breasts and maybe it's fake because of the breasts.

There's one or two conflicts with common witness descriptions, but we don't know how accurate or honest they are to compare to footage with the same provenance

My greatest intrigue regarding sasquatch/ bigfoot is that they simply can't exist in N America (logically). No way. Then where do the witness accounts come from? They can't all be hoaxes surely? Very puzzling subject...

(now ATS owns my 'monkey porn' collection, I can delete them from my harddrive )

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

In 1967 the number of people who had a video camera was much much smaller than it is today. And the number of people today that are actively looking for Bigfoot with much better cameras and technology is greater than it has ever been and there has not been a video since this one to show this much footage of "bigfoot".

How is it that these guys go out on their first expedition with a super 8 and capture this video footage, when countless others since have been spending huge amounts of time and money and technology to attempt to get a video that is even close to this and none have. There really arent any videos that i can remember seeing that have anything close to the length or clarity of this classic video. Except for the obvious fakes and reproductions.

I don't think the equipment has anything to do with it really. Paterson went out on horse back. The horse could have masked their odors and Bigfoot may have not noticed them approaching. They were not in a loud pick up truck or an ATV which is what many people do these days they drive or ride motorized vehicles around making a ruckus looking for Bigfoot.

If it is closer to a human than an ape then it thinks more like a man and would be smarter than say a bear or any other wild animal and maybe and this is of course speculation on my part, can think and decide to avoid us and hide and figure out other ways to avoid detection.

Edit to add

Hey Kandinsky Have any Baboons?
I'm partial to Baboons

[edit on 17-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

The Patterson footage can't be touched by debunks.
They tried and tried and tried everything.

It was no man in a suit, a suit like that couldn't have been build that well in the 60's.
obviously not CGI.
They had an olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements WITHOUT the suit, and he couldn't do it.

So? what now?
The reason this film is not seen as proof is because the fat cats that make money off of bigfoot shows and what not are keeping it quite.
That's why they never find squat in the shows.
It's the american way.

Oh and, I don't know why people don't do this for everything, but, why not give the one guy alive a lie detector test.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by Alexander the Great]

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
The Patterson footage can't be touched by debunks.
They tried and tried and tried everything.

It was no man in a suit, a suit like that couldn't have been build that well in the 60's.
obviously not CGI.
They had an olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements WITHOUT the suit, and he couldn't do it.

So? what now?
The reason this film is not seen as proof is because the fat cats that make money off of bigfoot shows and what not are keeping it quite.
That's why they never find squat in the shows.
It's the american way.

Oh and, I don't know why people don't do this for everything, but, why not give the one guy alive a lie detector test.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by Alexander the Great]

The bottomline is there has NEVER been any picture of a suit that was built in the 1960's that looked like the one in the video. Moreover, the actual suit used by the men who supposedly faked the entire thing has NEVER been brought to light.

That argument in and of itself is hard evidence.

reply to post by Kandinsky


You know the more I thought about what you posted the more it started me thinking. Why wouldn't a Bigfoot female from the "Pacific Northwest " have fur on her breasts? Think about it...

It gets very cold up in them there mountains in the dead of winter and lets consider a bear for a moment a female bear from the same area is completely covered with fur that includes it's breasts. In other words it would have evolved or adapted to live in those conditions.

The example apes you posted are tropical forest dwellers no?

reply to post by SLAYER69

It gets very cold up in them there mountains in the dead of winter and lets consider a bear for a moment a female bear from the same area is completely covered with fur that includes it's breasts. In other words it would have evolved or adapted to live in those conditions. The example apes you posted are tropical forest dwellers no?

Sounds very reasonable. Hmmmm...You've got me stroking my chin in deep ponder. Nothing else I hasten to add, as I've just had another look at 'monkey porn.' Comparing bear and primate could be like comparing oranges and apples. I can't find any apes with hairy breasts. Monkeys do, which raises the question of whether bare breasted apes is less to do with climate than social reasons. In humans, the breasts are a secondary sexual feature. In apes, I'm not so sure (they'd be less hairy to attract attention) and I draw the line at looking into the primate karma sutra. A man can only look into the abyss so long before it looks back and he finds he's enjoying it

I guess the 'beyond reasonable doubt' we're looking for remains out of reach. Each point made can be challenged or opened to question. I certainly didn't plan on ape boobs being part of my day

Originally posted by Kandinsky
My greatest intrigue regarding sasquatch/ bigfoot is that they simply can't exist in N America (logically). No way. Then where do the witness accounts come from? They can't all be hoaxes surely? Very puzzling subject...

This is appears a logical enough supposition, although the same may be said of Australia, perhaps even more so, yet I have heard an account of an encounter with the Yowie of New South Wales that I believe.

So where does that leave us?

Is it possible that the Mapinguary of Brazil and the Amazon Basin migrated North to Sasquatch territory just as man migrated in ancient times?

Isolated as Australia is and home to no primates (except Humans!) it only has indigenous Marsupials however the story of the Yowie or the Yahoo(!) stems from the earliest Aboriginal folklore.

I had such a story related to me although it consists of the "friend of a friend" variety in that it happened to a colleague of a ranger that was tracking for my team in the Queensland Rainforest.

Now, this guy was a no-nonsense kind of guy, he'd been a soldier (special forces!) and was regularly at the forefront of attacking the drug growers in the jungle, abseiling in and living off his wits to destroy irrigation encampments and drug fields carved from the rainforest. I have no reason to doubt his honesty in the face of everything else I know about him. He was cool under any circumstance; while tracking though dense forest, he turned about and casually asked us to have a look at his eye, "Cos I think I've got a leech in there...". Sure enough, a leech had attached itself to his eyeball socket and we had to carefully extract it.

He told a tale of another ranger camped on a shale embankment in the forests of New South Wales. Sitting at the campfire alone , the ranger noticed his dog acting up as if someone was approaching. The ranger tried to calm his dog and took up a ready stance. At this stage the dog became extremely agitated and barked furiously at the opposite shore, splashing into the low water. The dog's agitation was one of fear rather than protection and the ranger became aware of the cracking of branches and undergrowth from the facing embankment. It crashed through the trees getting closer, reached the treeline and waited, the ranger with his shotgun ready, the dog barking.

The whole night was spent on guard feeding the fire but when morning came he investigated the scene and found the branches and vines pushed back as if a giant immensely strong person had waded through the thick of it. No visual "sighting" evidence, no clues as such - but - if you've ever been in the rainforests of Australia you'll know that there is nothing that does that kind of damage. People don't just wander around in there, 5 days trek into the canopy, it just doesn't happen. Something was in there, something big and something strong - certainly not a "man f*cking about".

Take that as a campfire story if you will, but I have always believed it. Hell, I've seen an Aborigine pull fish after fish from a river using a piece if string and a fashioned hook while we hooked nothing with our fancy rods and lines, an Aborigine walking barefoot over razor sharp flints while our expensive gortex hiking boots were ripped to shreds, I've seen a chap climb almost vertical inclines with a heavy canvas (i.e. a tarpaulin) bedding roll slung over his shoulder, jumping up like a mountain goat while we, trained and fit as we were, wheezed behind with our lightweight rucksacks and gear.

I'm open minded about what it can be, that place is full of surprises if you look for them and maybe the Yowie is just always out of sight.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube
That was a very interesting reply-well written.

The concept of Yeti, Sasquatch, Yowie, Bigfoot and even abominable snowmen is always problematic for me. More so in the heavily populated N America. Primates favor nests and we never find them anywhere. Like bears, they certainly sh~* in the woods, where are the dump traces? Can a 300lb+ adult find up to 4000 calories+ per day, year round? That level of sustenance requires (in the Everglades or Himalayas) a lot of foraging for food. Such movement would be hazardous to discovery by tracks or bumping into people. In winter, tracks are unavoidable. Where are their young and where are their dead? When tracks are found, it's often just a couple of big footprints from a solitary animal. Where are the family units? Big questions and no answers

Then we have the stories and accounts, like your tracker. Yowie, yeti, Bigfoot. All have many witness descriptions. Some will be hoaxed, some are natives poking fun at wealthy travelers and explorers or making some money. As I mentioned earlier, it seems illogical to assume that 'every' account is hoax or misidentification. It's like quantum entanglement...two places at one time. They can't exist and somehow it appears that they might do.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Where are their young and where are their dead?

Well, I'll bleat on about Australia for just another post in relation to the point above. Although a completely valid point I will just relay this story. Trekking through the rainforest where bush was tough going we would come across large areas of flattened undergrowth, probably a good 25ft in radius.

These were caused by herds of wild pigs bedding down for the night as they scavenged the forest floor. Now, we're not talking little pygmy pigs here, this boars were bad-assed and could gut you like a fish with their tusks. The thing is, we never saw or heard any - not in the wild, even though they were numerous and travelled in large groups.

Also, the canopy was a haven for tree-kangaroos, little fellas that mooched about the upper branches. We never saw or heard them until we made camp under some particularly fruitful trees and were pelted by the kernels of the fruits they were chowing down as they dumped their trash. Shimmying up a tree, we could still see nothing as they seemingly vanished quickly and silently into the night.

They were real things, but were essentially invisible.

I totally take your point, but it is worth remembering that the absence of sh*t doesn't mean that the bear hasn't been in the woods.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Comparing apples and apples or apples with fruit in general can be a slippery slope - especially when it comes to cryptozoology IMO.

One the one hand - if we want to know if something is possible in nature, we only have to look at nature to see if "it's been done before". For example - do primates have hairy breasts? Gorillas don't. Orang-utans don't. Should we decide that the answer is no?

Let's not look at the big apes. Let's take a look at monkeys. (Start your search for hairy breasts with velvet monkeys, snow baboons and the fascinating Gelada baboon...) Where do we stand now?

We can only assume that Bigfoot is a primate, because of his has many primate traits. But do we know for a fact that Bigfoot is a primate? When we are comparing Bigfoot breasts with primate breasts, do we know for a fact that we are comparing apples with apples?

Let's pretend that the platypus was a Crypto, i.e. a rumour with some blurry photographs from Down Under... Stories are told about a small mammal with the mouth of a duck, it lays eggs and has a poisonous spur on its hind legs... We would look at other (similar?) mammals in nature and be quick to say: Impossible. Mammals don't lay eggs. It must be a hoax...

And I can come up with several examples of the sort: Sea horses, chameleons, kangaroos, Panda bears (being vegetarian) etc.

It's OK to look at nature for a frame of reference, but we need to keep in mind that nature doesn't follow any rules. Expect the unexpected when it comes to nature.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
My problem with the Patterson footage, that makes me question its authenticity is that this footage was taken 1967 by men who said they were going out to look for bigfoot. These guys say, "hey, let’s go look for bigfoot" and bang, they get the footage they wanted.

It's a bit of a conundrum (and I agree that it is). Would the story have been more believable if they said they were actually out there to film bears or trees? Let's try and look at it from a hoaxers point of view. If I were to hoax a Bigfoot video, would I start my story with the words "I was out looking for Bigfoot when..."?

Actually we see this (looking for something and finding it) time and again. Researchers/scientists/explorers go out to find an animal... and they find it. Discovery, Animal Planet and National Geographic shows at last one such show every day... "Join so and so on his search for the elusive Borneo One-eyed squirrel” or whatever.

These guys wanted to find Bigfoot. They had reason to believe they knew where Bigfoot was... Lo and behold, they found Bigfoot... Funny it should sound suspicious, isn't it?

Edit: Clarity.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Gemwolf]