Patterson Film Stabilized

originally posted by: Richsac89
keep in mind that this was shot on film and not your current mobile camera phones where Patterson would've been able to easily take multiple video clips, both of them watch it together, delete all unbelievable clips and mistakes, tell the guy in suit to go back to the spot in the scorching CA heat for another reshoot. In reality, he would've had to do multiple shots at the forest, go home to develop the film, analyze the film to look for any hoax mistakes and call up the guy to put on his suit again for another reshoot because it turned out to shaky, he wasnt crouching enough, it looked to human or exposed to much of the costume.

I don't know how expensive a roll of film was back then and I don't know how far he lived from ground zero to be able to go back multiple times to land the money shot. So either he got lucky and landed the most believable hoax in history with few trial and error, or he got even luckier to not only witness but also filmed the most elusive creature ever as proof of its existence.

There would be nothing at all to stop them from practicing it without using film as many times as it took to get it right, to be fair. Small price to pay for what they got, in my opinion.

a reply to: jaffo

Small price to pay for what they got, in my opinion.

This is an excellent question. What did they get? I've seen it claimed that Patterson didn't profit from the film at all. I'd be interested in seeing how much actual revenue was generated from the film. Gimlin certainly seems to have made a living off of it.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: jaffo

Small price to pay for what they got, in my opinion.

This is an excellent question. What did they get? I've seen it claimed that Patterson didn't profit from the film at all. I'd be interested in seeing how much actual revenue was generated from the film. Gimlin certainly seems to have made a living off of it.

They absolutely made money off of it. Appearances, exhibitions, TV and film rights. Notoriety. What they did worked. The fact that we are here talking about it goes to show that fact.

Yeah, on that Netflix show, the guy who examined the video got rare access to the original video from the wife cuz the video is under lock and key somewhere and that's why he was able to do such a good job of analyzing it. The original looks much better than all the copies because the quality faces every time another copy is made and there's been many times over the years. Also, they show the length of the arms and legs and what not, especially they examine the consistent ape like walk that could have been done by a man in a suit but extremely difficult, and at that time, would they really have gone to that extent? And, the breasts? That show is pretty convincing. Search it on Netflix, the Truth about Bigfoot. It's part of a series of vids on conspiracy theories.

Ba'wis (Tsimshian Indian Bigfoot)
Boqs (Bella Coola Bigfoot)
Bush Indians (Alaskan Athabaskan Bigfoot)
Chiye-Tanka (Sioux Indian Bigfoot)
Choanito/Night People (Wenatchi Indian Bigfoot)
Hairy Man (Yokuts Indian Bigfoot)
Kohuneje (Maidu Indian Bigfoot)
Lariyin (Dogrib Indian Bigfoot)
Lofa (Chickasaw Indian Bigfoot)
Matah Kagmi (Modoc Indian Bigfoot)
Maxemista (Cheyenne Indian Bigfoot)
Na'in (Gwich'in Indian Bigfoot)
Nakani (Dene Indian Bigfoot)
Nant'ina (Tanaina Indian Bigfoot)
Nik'inla'eena' (Koyukon Indian Bigfoot)
Omah (Hupa Indian Bigfoot)
Sasquatch (Coast Salish Indian Bigfoot)
Seeahtlk (Clallam Indian Bigfoot)
Shampe (Choctaw Indian Bigfoot)
Siatco (Chehalis Indian Bigfoot)
Skookum (Chinook Indian Bigfoot)
Ste-ye-hah'mah (Yakama Indian Bigfoot)
Stick Indians (Northwest Coast Bigfeet)
*The Woodsman (Athabaskan Indian Bigfoot)

Bigfoot is a creation of contemporary American Pop-Culture? That must be why indigenous people's all over have been talking about the creature for ages.

Anyway, I don't want to get too off-topic & Seraph, I wouldn't even bother trying to argue your points with someone who is clearly being extremely condescending and who is derailing the thread.

We've all been having a very civil back and forth here in this thread up until now, skeptics and believers alike.

So let's keep on topic shall we? This thread is a discussion concerning the stabilized version of the Patterson film that the OP posted. So let's forego the personal BS and address the film in question. This thread isn't about proving whether or not Bigfoot exists.

As you were saying.... I don't think Patterson & Co. were making any really significant money off of the film & I would be interested in seeing any real evidence of that. The only person in this situation whose obviously trying to continually profit to this very day and make a quick buck is Morris the shyster costume maker who claims to have the "suit" originally made for and used in the Patterson film.

And I think If more people could witness first hand the detail present in the original master copy of the film people might think differently of it.

a reply to: jaffo

Come on let's think here. If you found tracks in the woods of the only other known bipedal creature would you expect to find scat somewhere along the trail???

These are not mindless beasts. If they still exist, they are highly intelligent and highly capable, and probably highly social. They may bury their dead, they may be relative of say neanderthal or some other advanced hominid. They may be actively avoiding humans and be intelligent enough to do so better than any other animal.

The point made of human tribes not being found until recently and many more still probably out there undiscovered ABSOLUTELY shows the possibility of a highly intelligent hominid being able to survive in the woods relatively undetected.

I have to laugh though, because they really AREN'T undetected. They are seen ALL the time. The reason science doesn't find them is that they largely aren't looking because "not possible"

I find it funny that all modern paradigms throughout history have always thought that THEY knew what was really there and what wasn't. It is the greatest folly of man to assume that he knows everything, when wise men realize they know hardly anything.

Jaden

Another thing, Patty has breasts which means that Bigfoot copulates face to face, indicating a long duration bond between mates that themselves are part of a community.

Yet no groups of Bigfeet have ever been seen, only single individuals and adults with children.

Furthermore, Patty walks alone, meaning that females (which are always the parent, yet the male can't be sure) is allowed to roam freely. So freely also that she could have been a prey for Patterson and company. Males can reproduce all the time, but females are pregnant with just one or two babies for a long period; their worth thus is higher.

I really have to wonder whether this is a fat man with fur glued on him, plastic shields to cover up the whites of his eyes, plus very saggy fun bangs as a bonus

Also, does Patty have a pelvis wide enough for having children? Her saggy breasts indicate multiple lactation periods. So she must also have been quite old.

Just a few ideas.

a reply to: QueenofWeird

you've brought up some good points. i believe those breasts to be one of the main signs that the footage is legitimate along with the creature. if someone were going to hoax a bigfoot, as has been done in the past, it's always male, and has never, ever had breasts. i imagine it would be a whole lot easier and simpler to try and replicate a male bigfoot because the lack of breasts is one less component to try and get right and be convincing enough. so leaving them out all together would avoid adding something to probably whats going to be one of the most stand out and visible parts of the body that the hoaxer would have to replicate accurately.

also, i've heard from a native american medicine women that bigfoot does bury their dead, they do mate much like we do in terms of having a partner that they will mourn if lost. additionally, i've read and heard experiencers talk about seeing multiple bigfoot at once. like a father/mother & son/daughter, up to 3 of them together at the same time.

from everything out there you can garner that Bigfoot is extremely intelligent, extremely quick, built for quick travel over steep, rocky and treacherous terrain. they also have a vocal and non-vocal communication system. there's even some evidence out there of Bigfoot using markers for their territory. Not to mention that their sense of smell/hearing is off the charts. And I believe that to be one of the main reasons why they are so effectively elusive. They can smell our un-natural scents from long ways off and can hear us bumbling around in the woods as well. They are gone before we get close. Unless they get curious, in which case people might get lucky and see one. Also if they are aggressive/defensive over something they can be more confrontational, but for the most part they seem to have a non-confrontational disposition.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Ok let's say Patty is for real. What was she doing? Wanting to drink but walked away because of the people and horses?

By looking, she engages Patterson and company. Primates look when they are agressive and/or not afraid. Interesting, as we have guns.

www.youtube.com...

analysis that Patty is for real.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I have to laugh though, because they really AREN'T undetected. They are seen ALL the time. The reason science doesn't find them is that they largely aren't looking because "not possible".

And yet, even with a large enough population to breed, and be seen "ALL the time," we still don't have a body. They never get shot accidentally, or fall off a cliff, or get hit by a truck. Okay, maybe they're really intelligent, but they're likely not more intelligent than people, and those kinds of things frequently happen to human beings.

As for the "science" not caring or looking into the subject, perhaps that used to be the case, but in recent years there have been legitimate scientists looking into the subject. And they still haven't found anything, or if they have, it's turned out to be bears.

Hey, it would be very interesting if somebody shot and killed a Bigfoot tomorrow and hauled it right into a local coroner's office for examination. I'm sure "science" would be interested then. But that hasn't happened.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Ok let's say Patty is for real. What was she doing? Wanting to drink but walked away because of the people and horses?

By looking, she engages Patterson and company. Primates look when they are agressive and/or not afraid. Interesting, as we have guns.

That's a good question. She may have been out foraging or simply traveling from point A to point B. And she definitely makes eye contact with Patterson, assessed that they weren't an immediate threat and kept on covering ground and putting distance between them both. I think if even one of those men took an aggressive stance and pointed a rifle at her, I think the encounter could have went a whole lot different.

Additionally, an interesting side note...Choctaw oral histories say that there are two kinds of bigfoot and they have two seperate names for the two dofferent distinctions. One is nice, curious and protective, your average bigfoot like patty, non-aggressive with yellow eyes shine. The other is exceptionally more agreesive, less evolved, soley a meat eater, reflects red eye-shine and they say this one is more primal. For example if you have a freshly hunted deer carcass and this bigfoot catches scent of it it will come after the meat, regardless of whether or not you are in the way. The natives suggest you ditch whatever fresh meat you have and let the bigfoot have it because it will become violent to get the meat away from you.

Lastly, they also say that the creator gave both these Bigfoot a "second earth" so they would have a safe place to bury their dead and roam free without interruption. Apparently, this happened after a sever conflict with a certain tribe of Bigfoot that was coming into their camps, stealing & killing women, children and livestock. This would almost seem to suggest that they do have some kind of extra dimensional ability perhaps.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Genoskwa is the nasty one yes but this should make it easy to catch it! Fresh meat and pronto presto!

a reply to: QueenofWeird

Haha, perhaps easy to encounter, but catch? That's a whole different story. They are still very clever, more so than the average bear eh boo boo? Lol

But, they way I see it any trap, snare, pit, trail cam etc will reek of human scent, a clear sign for them to stay away.

a reply to: Blue Shift

They've potentially lived in the same environment for God knows how long. over that period of time they would have acclimated exponentially more to their surroundings than any human. And it's impossible to say what their intelligence level is. They could be like dolphins. But, they have been known to exhibit communication skills/vocalizations so they most likely have language, which is a skill seen in highly developed mammals.

They are the alpha animal in their terrain. Making a death by some accidental means like falling off a cliff very slim to non-existent. Also, their muscle and bone mass/density would probably be extreme in order to be able to carry such a heavy frame/body around so swiftly, which in turn would make me think that bullets even rounds that are considered high capacity would do little damage to them. People have reported firing many rounds into bigfoot with little to no visible effect. No blood, visible wound etc.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Yeah, on that Netflix show, the guy who examined the video got rare access to the original video from the wife cuz the video is under lock and key somewhere and that's why he was able to do such a good job of analyzing it. The original looks much better than all the copies because the quality faces every time another copy is made and there's been many times over the years.

There is no "original video" (it was a film, didn't have video in '67). No one knows anything about the original, there are only various (claimed) generation copies.

If there were an original it would answer many questions such as where and when it was processed (the original story doesn't add up) and we would know whether it has been edited.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
Ba'wis (Tsimshian Indian Bigfoot)
Boqs (Bella Coola Bigfoot)
Bush Indians (Alaskan Athabaskan Bigfoot)
Chiye-Tanka (Sioux Indian Bigfoot)
Choanito/Night People (Wenatchi Indian Bigfoot)
Hairy Man (Yokuts Indian Bigfoot)
Kohuneje (Maidu Indian Bigfoot)
Lariyin (Dogrib Indian Bigfoot)
Lofa (Chickasaw Indian Bigfoot)
Matah Kagmi (Modoc Indian Bigfoot)
Maxemista (Cheyenne Indian Bigfoot)
Na'in (Gwich'in Indian Bigfoot)
Nakani (Dene Indian Bigfoot)
Nant'ina (Tanaina Indian Bigfoot)
Nik'inla'eena' (Koyukon Indian Bigfoot)
Omah (Hupa Indian Bigfoot)
Sasquatch (Coast Salish Indian Bigfoot)
Seeahtlk (Clallam Indian Bigfoot)
Shampe (Choctaw Indian Bigfoot)
Siatco (Chehalis Indian Bigfoot)
Skookum (Chinook Indian Bigfoot)
Ste-ye-hah'mah (Yakama Indian Bigfoot)
Stick Indians (Northwest Coast Bigfeet)
*The Woodsman (Athabaskan Indian Bigfoot)

That is amazing that each of those directly translates to "Bigfoot"

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
Ba'wis (Tsimshian Indian Bigfoot)
Boqs (Bella Coola Bigfoot)
Bush Indians (Alaskan Athabaskan Bigfoot)
Chiye-Tanka (Sioux Indian Bigfoot)
Choanito/Night People (Wenatchi Indian Bigfoot)
Hairy Man (Yokuts Indian Bigfoot)
Kohuneje (Maidu Indian Bigfoot)
Lariyin (Dogrib Indian Bigfoot)
Lofa (Chickasaw Indian Bigfoot)
Matah Kagmi (Modoc Indian Bigfoot)
Maxemista (Cheyenne Indian Bigfoot)
Na'in (Gwich'in Indian Bigfoot)
Nakani (Dene Indian Bigfoot)
Nant'ina (Tanaina Indian Bigfoot)
Nik'inla'eena' (Koyukon Indian Bigfoot)
Omah (Hupa Indian Bigfoot)
Sasquatch (Coast Salish Indian Bigfoot)
Seeahtlk (Clallam Indian Bigfoot)
Shampe (Choctaw Indian Bigfoot)
Siatco (Chehalis Indian Bigfoot)
Skookum (Chinook Indian Bigfoot)
Ste-ye-hah'mah (Yakama Indian Bigfoot)
Stick Indians (Northwest Coast Bigfeet)
*The Woodsman (Athabaskan Indian Bigfoot)

Bigfoot is a creation of contemporary American Pop-Culture? That must be why indigenous people's all over have been talking about the creature for ages.

Rather than making a list of wishful thinking claims, it might be better to put them up one at a time and we'll go through them. Or at least explain them individually, It is difficult to find any mention of the bigfoot of popular culture amongst the traditions of NA tribes. Not only do they usually turn out to be something very different (bigfooters will co opt just about anything including all manner of supernatural beings/beasties/myths and reinterpret it as bigfoot), there is absolutely no consistency among them if you're talking bigfoot.

Anyway, I don't want to get too off-topic & Seraph, I wouldn't even bother trying to argue your points with someone who is clearly being extremely condescending and who is derailing the thread.

= the last thing we need is to take a critical look at anything bigfoot, that might challenge our cherished beliefs...

As you were saying.... I don't think Patterson & Co. were making any really significant money off of the film & I would be interested in seeing any real evidence of that. The only person in this situation whose obviously trying to continually profit to this very day and make a quick buck is Morris the shyster costume maker who claims to have the "suit" originally made for and used in the Patterson film.

It made $200,000 dollars in the first year alone (which apparently Patterson shared with his financier/ brother in law de Atley). A lot of money in '67-'68. $10,000 fees have been paid to use the film publicly for profit, such as in documentaries (unless you want to take a sceptical look at it, then it is very unlikely to be made available to you at all).

No wonder Patterson never ever returned to Bluff Creek, instead going on expedition to places like Thailand (a well known "hot spot" lol).

No wonder the first thing Gimlin did after Patterson passed, was sue his widow.

The only money Morris has made was on the original costume he sold to Patterson.

And I think If more people could witness first hand the detail present in the original master copy of the film people might think differently of it.

The last thing this film needs is closer scrutiny if you're passing it off as legit. I think if someone supplied a bigfoot to go with it, people might think differently. The "master copy" claim itself is dubious (is it really a 1st gen copy?). Nevertheless it is a copy (not the original) of a blurry shaky original. You could probably also find Elvis in it, if you look hard enough.

Here is a great webpage explaining many of the questions about the "suit or real creature" debate.

www.oregonbigfoot.com...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The only money Morris has made was on the original costume he sold to Patterson.

Does Morris have proof to your claim?