Patterson Film Stabilized

Zig-zag line where the top and bottom of the suit fit together, and allow movement? Maybe?

Another strange thing is that if you look closely, the breasts look like balls in say socks. Really saggy boobs are like deflated balloons, not saggy at the top and very firm at the bottom. Also these breasts should flap a bit, since the attachment to the torso is loose.

It also appears that the position that Patty's breast are jutting out from, largely defying gravity, is a little low. Almost from her abdomen. It stands out more in various other frames. Strange also that all other observations point to "her" being a "him".(large sagittal crest for instance). A transgender bigfoot? Almost like someone with little knowledge of anatomy put together a fake. Surely not.

So perhaps Patterson was lucky enough to snap the "page three model" of bigfoots? Certainly indicated by the catwalk type "get back stare" as she poses for Patterson and casually sashays across the runway sandbar?

It's not unreasonable to assume, given the technology they must possess in order to make them appear not to even exist, that they have bigfoot cosmetic surgeons and breast implants?

There are many reasons why she is often referred to as "Patchwork Patty". Though such a poor quality, artifact ridden film, makes detailed observation very prone to pareidolia.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
Another strange thing is that if you look closely, the breasts look like balls in say socks. Really saggy boobs are like deflated balloons, not saggy at the top and very firm at the bottom. Also these breasts should flap a bit, since the attachment to the torso is loose.

Maybe it's not a female. Males can have rather large chests, if they have muscular pecs with a layer of fat on top as well. Who knows, what exactly that situation would like on something like this?

a reply to: shasta9600

Krantz once put forward the idea that they were a type of "air sac", as that seen on large male Orangutan. An extant relative, possibly even descendant, of Gigantopithecus itself. Though no one took such musings seriously, as nothing supports either of these notions. Grasping at straws there. There is no known situation where these breasts look believable, re it being a genuine biological form. Yet they are completely consistent with a fake.

originally posted by: crazyeddie68

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
There are many claims that the suit and film effects were too rudimentary back then to pull this off. Nothing could be further from the truth. Elaborate effects and costumes were used for films as far back as Fritz Langs "Metropolis" and influenced George Lucas when he made Star Wars. It is more likely then than now because we rely so much on digital effects these days. I know a few people in the film industry that did effects the old fashioned way. It was not uncommon for small shops to offer these services to the big studios, so the talent wasn't just available at the high priced studios.I talked to one of those people that helped make the Star Trek Enterprise 11 foot model. It was made by Productions Model Shop in Burbank, CA and was made up of just 3 guys.

16mm film is cheap to buy and they could have easily shot multiple takes. I watched the Munns version, and while a very clear scan, it still is no where near clear enough to discern rippling muscles. My feeling is that people are projecting on to what detail is missing.

I have an open mind on this but I still do not see the detail in even the close up inset for the "Truth Behind: Bigfoot" documentary. Keep in mind I make my living doing Graphic Design and my visual skills are not lacking.

The suit doesn't look that convincing to me. Rick Bakers' gorilla costumes and performers were more convincing.

That is my visual opinion.

I respect what you are saying thepixelpusher,and now I know the meaning behind your username.

I don't know if you can answer my question about the muscle definition and the picture of the padded suit I posted or not,but in your honest opinion,could that padding look like real muscles under a suit?

I can't answer the padding/muscle question. My opinion is based on a few looks at the new clearer video. I think Bill Munns did a much better evaluation and he believes it. I'm leaning more toward it being a suit, but I will admit my opinion is just a short look at the players in this. That said, the Morris suit does look strikingly similar to the Patterson film. A suit he made prior to the clearer scan of the film Munns did. Add Bob Heronimus and his story that seems to dovetail into Morris's story and that Bob was a neighbor to Gimlin and it starts to seems to be solved. The more you dig the more it seems to open up to a fake film whether Patterson was fooled or Patterson set out to fool us.

a reply to: thepixelpusherThanks for the reply,One thing I wanna add.

You all remember the Gable Film hoax?That film also looked real to me ,and the guy who shot it admitted it was a hoax.Anyone know what kind of camera he used,off hand?Because the camera could be key to solving this.The gable film was a guy in a ghilie(sp?)suit and it looked like a real dog like creature.

ETA.Gable film was shot with an old 8mm camera.

All the people on this thread who say "it should look like this" or "that doesn't look natural" or "that doesn't look right".

Do you even realise how stupid you sound?

Are any of you experts in the morphology of an unknown bipedal species?

No, didn't think so.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
All the people on this thread who say "it should look like this" or "that doesn't look natural" or "that doesn't look right".

Do you even realise how stupid you sound?

Are any of you experts in the morphology of an unknown bipedal species?

No, didn't think so.

The odds that an "unknown bipedal species" would just happen to look like a b grade movie prop/ man in a crappy costume, are quite low.

This the best explanation for believer claims regarding the PG film hoax.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Care to show me an example of a "b grade movie prop/ man in a crappy costume" from 1967?

If this was a costume it was state of the art for the time, you should try to temper your disdain with some actual knowledge.

Any modern attempts to replicate this film have failed miserably, no man in a costume so far has been able to match the gait of whatever it is depicted in the PG film.

Delusional 'believers' have their counterparts: myopic 'non-believers', equally as short-sighted.

double post

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Care to show me an example of a "b grade movie prop/ man in a crappy costume" from 1967?

If this was a costume it was state of the art for the time, you should try to temper your disdain with some actual knowledge.

Any modern attempts to replicate this film have failed miserably, no man in a costume so far has been able to match the gait of whatever it is depicted in the PG film.

Delusional 'believers' have their counterparts: myopic 'non-believers', equally as short-sighted.

To be fair, it is not on skeptics to prove that this is fake. It's on believers to prove it's real. And, again, looking at it stabilized in hidef reveals it to be a horrible fake. It's had a fun ride, but technology has finally killed the PG Film. I mean, just look at the butt on that thing. Can you honestly say that is not obviously fake now that you have seen it stabilized and in hidef?

I totally agree with seabhac-rua. You have to ask yourself: if that's a guy in a costume, at what point did they have the conversation about the boobs?

"Well wait now before you start sewing, I got an even better idea!" "We put boobs on the thing!" "That's right, big ol' sasquatch boobies; they'll be struggling for years to debunk that one!"

Naw, that's sasquatch. I will go to my grave knowing in my heart that everytime I looked at that film I was looking at the beast itself. That's no costume.

originally posted by: Bybyots
I totally agree with seabhac-rua. You have to ask yourself: if that's a guy in a costume, at what point did they have the conversation about the boobs?

"Well wait now before you start sewing, I got an even better idea!" "We put boobs on the thing!" "That's right, big ol' sasquatch boobies; they'll be struggling for years to debunk that one!"

Naw, that's sasquatch. I will go to my grave knowing in my heart that everytime I looked at that film I was looking at the beast itself. That's no costume.

Please see the above post clearly showing a BF with boobs in a book Patterson put out well in advance of the PG film being created. Awfully suspicious, wouldn't you say? Any other books from that time focusing on female BF with boobs? Nah. But Patterson's did...and then he "just happened" to film a female BF his first trip into the woods. But yeah, that seems legit...

a reply to: jaffo

Ah goddammnit!

So much for my peaceful deathbed dreams of sasquatch roaming undebunked.

Thanks alot, buddy.




ETA: Holy Jesus H., that means there actually was a conversation concerning the boobies. I give up.

Ah man,

That sort of makes the Patterson film an early precursor to the Blair Witch Project. That's it! I'm totally joining a convent.

originally posted by: jaffo

To be fair, it is not on skeptics to prove that this is fake. It's on believers to prove it's real. And, again, looking at it stabilized in hidef reveals it to be a horrible fake. It's had a fun ride, but technology has finally killed the PG Film. I mean, just look at the butt on that thing. Can you honestly say that is not obviously fake now that you have seen it stabilized and in hidef?

I don't it's think it is on anybody to prove anything.

I'm not saying that the PG film definitely shows a real live sasquatch. It could be a fake for all I know, but dismissing it as a man in a suit because it "doesn't look right" is just stupid.

I absolutely disagree with your opinion that technology has "killed the PG film", that's just your opinion and nothing more I'm afraid. If anything technology has shown detail of the creature/bigfoot/subject(whatever you want to call it) in the film that would have been extremely hard, if not next to impossible to fake, let alone given the time period that this film was made in. Look at any Hollywood production from '67 back and see if you can find anything comparable, Planet Of The Apes???

Technology has revealed muscle structure beneath the fur of this creature, moving muscle structure. Show me any movie special effects from the 60's that had that level of detail. We can see muscle groups, we can see tendons, we can even see a herniated bulge on the creatures right thigh. There are extended clips of this film, that are usually not discussed, where you can see the creatures(for want of a better term) ass hole! Jeez, I never thought I'd have to point that out, but hey!

Again, I'm not asking skeptics to prove this is fake, not at all, I'm asking anybody who says this is fake to address these issues, there is a difference.

Edit, I am currently reading through this thread fro the beginning so, my apologies for making any arguments that have already been addressed. I entered this thread too late

I can't believe that Sasquatch has to go live with Jackalope and Snipe now. I feel like crying.

I blame you, ATS.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Care to show me an example of a "b grade movie prop/ man in a crappy costume" from 1967?

If this was a costume it was state of the art for the time, you should try to temper your disdain with some actual knowledge.

Any modern attempts to replicate this film have failed miserably, no man in a costume so far has been able to match the gait of whatever it is depicted in the PG film.

Delusional 'believers' have their counterparts: myopic 'non-believers', equally as short-sighted.

Been there done that. There are some very good and, unlike this shaky blurry artifact ridden effort, far more convincing costumes that had to withstand clear close up from the '30's. Footers ignore them en masse. If it isn't from "hollywood" it doesn't exist.

The fact remains that there is nothing about this film precluding a modern human in a costume, so it would be more relevant for you to provide some evidence that bigfoot is any more than folklore.

Attempts to replicate it? The ones 'footers point to are no such thing. Why would anyone want to? The only people that make such demands are footers. It's a fait accompli to scientists (apart from a few pseudo scientists). Wonder why Chris Walas thinks it's bogus?

I doubt "delusional" is terribly accurate (possible though). If you've looked into this film in any depth and still claim to believe, dishonesty is more likely (including self deception). It's simply more fun to pretend fairies/bigfoot is, or could be, real.

Quite ironic that the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence showing this a fake by a hoaxer, is ignored because, they are only claims. Yet at the same time, anecdotes are the only evidence bigfoot has ever had lol.

Pretend all you like, not buying into your "fantasy game for adults". You will need genuine evidence. We both now how unlikely that is.