It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patterson Film Stabilized

page: 13
37
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well, I for one am not out to prove sasquatch is real.

It's just a subject I find very interesting.

Yes anecdotal evidence is all you'll assert is available, seeing as you're firmly entrenched in the 'bigfoot is not real' camp, but hey that's your business.

I'm sure you've heard of 'ThinkerThunker' on youtube? What do you think of his body ratio analysis of the PG film?




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

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

Well, I for one am not out to prove sasquatch is real.

It's just a subject I find very interesting.

Yes anecdotal evidence is all you'll assert is available, seeing as you're firmly entrenched in the 'bigfoot is not real' camp, but hey that's your business.

I'm sure you've heard of 'ThinkerThunker' on youtube? What do you think of his body ratio analysis of the PG film?

I think it's crap and basically a great example of seeing whatever you want, wishful thinking, confirmation bias and making stuff up.

It's also a subject I find fascinating, for very good reason. A shame it has become a fantasy. There is no physical evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Bigfoot science is the business of faking and misinterpreting. Every claim of evidence that has been resolved, has been resolved as not bigfoot. It seems no one wishes to follow what the (lack of) evidence indicates.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I've read the whole thread. At 46, I grew up with this footage, and it was the prime piece of evidence to hang my belief on.

My comments on it now reflect my desire to wish it was as easy to believe now. I want to, but....

To those who ask about the white soles of feet, I still say "haven't you ever walked on sand with damp feet? it sticks to your soles."

To those who see toes flexing and foot changing shape, to my eye it looks like foreground objects obfuscating the foot and making it appear to change shape.

To those who think this is a massive, unclassified primate, I would just ask this: have you ever watched footage or seen in real life, the butt of a naked or nearly so human as it walks away from you? Ever watched a mountain gorilla move from behind?

Butt cheeks move, because they have to. Our legs pump them rhythmically as we move and the muscle groups flex.

Unless you are a sasquatch in the Patterson/Gimlin film.

So, I want to believe... but this footage is no longer the hook it was when I was 8.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   

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.



The Patterson film doesn't even look better than an A-grade movie costume like "Gorillas in the Mist" or "Harry and the Hedersons". If real, the Patty creature should make those othe costume efforts look fake, but the Patterson film looks like such a grade B effort in comparison. The Patterson film doesn't show muscle definition under the fur. That's just a trick of light on the moving costume fur.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo SumI'm sure you've heard of 'ThinkerThunker' on youtube? What do you think of his body ratio analysis of the PG film?


ThinkerThunker is an armchair researcher and is not even a serious field researcher. His video's are the weakest form of opinion with no real facts. Just enjoy his youTube channel as a fiction entertainment channel, because that's what it is.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I'm still pondering about PAtty. Firstly, are her arms really that long? Anyways, the seem to open and close her hand which couldn't been done if the arms are prosthetic.

And, the eyes. The guy saying he was Patty has indeed brown eyes but not almost black as Patty. When were coloured contact lenses introduced? Or did they dye normal ones? Contact lenses were available from late 40-ies that were practical (prior to this contact lenses already existed).



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo SumI'm sure you've heard of 'ThinkerThunker' on youtube? What do you think of his body ratio analysis of the PG film?


ThinkerThunker is an armchair researcher and is not even a serious field researcher. His video's are the weakest form of opinion with no real facts. Just enjoy his youTube channel as a fiction entertainment channel, because that's what it is.


Yeah? That's great.

Care to discuss his body ratio analysis?



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Just your opinion.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo SumI'm sure you've heard of 'ThinkerThunker' on youtube? What do you think of his body ratio analysis of the PG film?


ThinkerThunker is an armchair researcher and is not even a serious field researcher. His video's are the weakest form of opinion with no real facts. Just enjoy his youTube channel as a fiction entertainment channel, because that's what it is.


Yeah? That's great.

Care to discuss his body ratio analysis?


Running that sort of analysis where you do not even know what you are looking at is an exercise in foolishness.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

edit on 19-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Has anyone been watching Les Stroud Man v. Wild Bigfoot? I have to give hi credit for what he is doing and he has actually found and heard a few odd things. What he's doing? THAT is how you put this thing to the test.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
What we see on the PG film itself is open to speculation. Some see what they want, others don't quite see what some claim. My problem with it is this....the actual framework surrounding the film itself.

Consider something. PG were out there fully prepared to film a Sasquatch...and allegedly one accommodated them in a fully open space on a well lit day...virtually walking the catwalk.

Think about that.

Very very unlikely, very convenient.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: BiffTannen
What we see on the PG film itself is open to speculation. Some see what they want, others don't quite see what some claim. My problem with it is this....the actual framework surrounding the film itself.

Consider something. PG were out there fully prepared to film a Sasquatch...and allegedly one accommodated them in a fully open space on a well lit day...virtually walking the catwalk.

Think about that.

Very very unlikely, very convenient.


Exactly. It's like playing the lottery once. And winning.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

There's a reason polygraph's aren't admissible in court. Penn and Teller did an episode on the lie detector test. Language warning...

Start watching at about 3:45. They even tell you how you can easily pass a lie detector test.



They mythbusters also did an experiment with the lie detector test and they also decided it was plausible that you can beat a polygraph test.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Watching critically, Patterson film looks corny.

That's my objective opinion.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Stabilized or not it still looks like a guy in a baggy, poorly made gorilla costume.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Just your opinion.


And that's all we have is opinion, because there is NO SOLID EVIDENCE to presume this footage is real.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
But what about the saggy boobs and the rippling leg muscles ?

Interestingly enough, I couldn't see those in the stabilised version.

+1 for man in suit (much as it pains me to say)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I'd also say for a fake some of the details are strange. Look at stills of the feet and look at the individual toes. I haven't seen any definitive proof that it is either hoax or real. I still look at the size of the butt, legs, shoulders and the rippling of muscles to be hard to debunk. I don't care what lens, distance etc. You can just see the massive size of the legs.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I agree with you. I have seen this video many times but this is the first time I noticed that in the first 10 seconds when the creature is closest. It definitely look like hairy loose fitting pants. Watch it again and concentrate on the buttocks and rear upper thigh area during the first 10 seconds or so. Definitely looks like a suit.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join