Patterson Film Stabilized

I remember wanting to believe this footage was real when I first saw it but even back then when it said it had been taken at Bluff Creek, I was immediately sceptical.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Found this version, it gives an even better look at it.

The thing about this one is that it makes Bigfoot look not all that BIG. Looks to be about the same size as a normal person.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I have to laugh a bit at this... Humanity doesn't reach out into the areas that are undeveloped. There are tons of rain forests and arboreal forests that have hardly been explored.

Our ability to reach out and our willingness to do so are two different things, and I'm not convinced that our ability to reach out even precludes there not being large undiscovered animals.

You don't have to look too far into history to find science claiming that no large undiscovered creatures could possibly exist and that claims of them being seen are myth.

Gilled deer, 1983, giant panda early 1900's also the mountain gorilla; giant squid, etc...

It is the folly of man and a recurring theme that we think we know everything...

It's easy for science to acknowledge their existence now, but not long ago, the leading scientists were all screaming poppycock...

Jaden

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: TheOneElectric

There are a few members here that have seen these creatures in the flesh...are they supposed to dismiss what they saw with their own eyes in order to "grow up?"

Exactly and how about culturally? Guess you have to have been on the "bigfoot train" in the first place to acknowledge presentation beyond just believing what you want to believe.

I think the guy (Bill Munns) that analyzed and scanned the Patterson film in high resolution should have involved a primate expert and had a costumed person the size of the man who was supposed to have worn the costume and done a live action reenactment video. That way he could have seen if a costume could have distorted or replicated the shape of a primate in the way it folds against a person while walking. His conclusion was not all that involved and the CGI reenactment could be made to portray any position on this.

I'm not saying Bigfoot can't exist, I'm just saying the analysis of the Patterson film has not been that thorough or objective in my opinion. I'm sure others will differ with me, but I'd like to see a much better analysis.

If you can watch this and say that it shows anything but a man in a suit, I just don't know what to say to you at this point. It looks terrible. Seriously, that is sooooooo obviously a guy in a suit with a horrible butt pad, lol. When you gather all of the facts and realize that the guy was making a movie about BF--i.e., he WAS NOT "tracking" or "hunting" the creature, he was intending to film a work of fiction, that he had in fact talked with professionals about building him the suit he needed, that he was regarded even by his friends as being full of it, that the man who wore the suit admitted he wore it, that both men present when the filming occured had rifles on them and were only like 50 feet from the subject of the film and yet did nothing to bag it, then it seems fairly clear that this was a hoax. And please, stop with the "magic monkey foot" arguments. You cannot do any real analysis of the foot in this film due to the pixelation when you try to blow it up. It's a guy. In a suit. Walking like a doofus for his two hoaxer buddies. Where the suit is now does not matter and its absence proves nothing at all. For what it's worth, I bet it was destroyed right after this or they probably would have made more films. But if you want to believe that a guy making a BF movie "just happened" to stumble on one pretty much the first time he went into the woods to look for it but that he never ever saw one again, and if you choose to believe that such an "elusive" creature takes that leisurely stroll out of camera range in 1967 but can't be seen that clearly in 2015 when cameras are everywhere, you go right ahead. Because once again, if you can look at this and see anything but a guy in a suit and a fairly obvious hoax, I just don't know what would ever sway you at this point. To each his own, eh?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Found this version, it gives an even better look at it.

The thing about this one is that it makes Bigfoot look not all that BIG. Looks to be about the same size as a normal person.

Exactly. Because that's what it is. A guy in a suit. Sucks, really. My two favorite childhood pics, the Surgeon's Photograph and the PG Film...dead, lol.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Interesting. I didn't know he passed a lie detector test. While inconclusive, it does add weight to his claims.

ETA: Looks like Justin Smeja (the guy who claims to have shot 2 bigfoot and sent flesh samples to various labs) also passed a polygraph test. Makes me wonder, since I've always considered the Sierra Kills incident to be a hoax.

Still not sure I'm ready to label the patterson gimlin film a hoax based off a polygraph test, but I remain open minded.

You put your mind to it anyone can pass a lie detector test. It's all about whether you're nervous. I remember back in the late 80's watching an episode of Morton Downey Jr and he wanted to show a lie detector test was BS so he had the guy ask him every question which would have a lie for an answer and he passed every one. One of the questions they asked him was do you smoke, while he was puffing away on a cigarette, and he says no and test said he was telling the truth. Funny stuff.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
You put your mind to it anyone can pass a lie detector test. It's all about whether you're nervous.

Apparently one of the easiest ways to pass the test is to flex your sphincter muscle and loosen it when you want to tell a lie. Nearly impossible to detect.

There's a really good show on Netflix right now, something like the Truth about Bigfoot, not sure the title but search bigfoot on there. It really examines that Patterson video, the best I've seen yet, and pretty much claims the video is real. The way they bring the video back to its original copy enhancement is amazing and it looks real. They also show how at that time, even Hollywoods best makeup artists couldn't have done that. And, they show what it would take for someone to get in that suit and walk consistently throughout like a real ape would walk. Pretty interesting show, check it out.

a reply to: Rezlooper

exactly. the original was shot on film. so there are indeed ways to make it larger and keep a lot of the original detail without it being too "pixelated" to analyze. it seems that no matter how much is done to show the legitimacy of the film itself and how impossible it would have been for the subject to be a person in a suit all the opposition has to offer is "its a dude in a suit". they laugh at it and make fun of it, belittling it but, there are no serious rebuttals of the film. just people saying they "think" it looks fake. or "it doesn't look real" to them.

it's either that or they attack the person who shot the film and try and smear his name or bring up the guy who came forward saying it was him but, whose conveniently unable to prove his claims in any such way. it's funny they're willing to believe a guy who comes forward with just words in his defense over someone who actually has a video depicting something that moves in ways humans cannot in regards to the mid-tarsal break in the foot.

in any other instance the guy coming forward with solely the "it was me" defense would be immediately dismissed. but, because this deals with the world of cryptids it's a perfectly reasonable dismissal for some because it requires no actual thought or analysis.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Found this version, it gives an even better look at it.

I would say 99% percent of chance of being someone in a suit. Looks way too much artificial. The suit could create an illusion of bigger arms and stuff.

Have the soles of the feet been analyzed? They look kind of off, very pale.

LOL, Clearly a guy in a suit! So tired of seeing this video

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
Have the soles of the feet been analyzed? They look kind of off, very pale.

The biggest problem with them seems to be that they have a kind of "ridge" around them. I suppose it could be a ridge of hair that extends around the feet, but that would be different than most primates, which gradually have the hair taper off around the edge of the foot.

Blow up from film

ETA:Bill Munns has a great video series on you tube of his analysis on the P/G film.For those of you who don't know who Bill Munns is,he designed suits in Hollywood for years.So he is an expert on making suits and costumes.

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
LOL, Clearly a guy in a suit! So tired of seeing this video

Right. You're just the other side of the coin.

Computer resolution isn't high enough to determine anything.

You would need the original film.

a reply to: QueenofWeird

You see the toes come up in F308-F310.

a reply to: crazyeddie68

Neat. I've never seen that enhancement before. Maybe it's just me, but I can clearly see the toes moving independently of the rest of the foot. Not something you would see with a monkey suit (at least not one made in the 60's).

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yeah...that would be tough to pull off if it is a suit.

Munns has a few videos on you tube that are a must watch for anyone interested in the P/G film.