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: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
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?

No, only he and his wife's word.

ps. Do you have proof that Patterson was ever at Bluff Creek at the time of said movie?


edit on 20-3-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: thepixelpusher

I found an article of a guy named Brian Penikas,who had met and interviewed John Chambers about his alleged involvement with the PGF.It can be read here



Excellent find! So that erases John Chambers from the list of possible explanations.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
Here is a great webpage explaining many of the questions about the "suit or real creature" debate.

www.oregonbigfoot.com...



Even though the Patterson fil is a hoax, it doesn't mean bigfoot doesn't exist

Agree with that. A complete lack of biological evidence suggests it doesn't exist at all. Further, when such things have been offered they have ended up being bear, racoon etc. (anything that has ever been concluded, has been conclusively not bigfoot) indicating there is either something very strange going on, or lots of bs.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
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.
edit on 20-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: crazyeddie68
a reply to: thepixelpusher

I found an article of a guy named Brian Penikas,who had met and interviewed John Chambers about his alleged involvement with the PGF.It can be read here



Excellent find! So that erases John Chambers from the list of possible explanations.
Not exactly...I read in an article before that one, were a few of Chambers closest friends stated he was a real "practical joker" and wouldn't admit to making the suit even if he DID make it.

I also found this while searching his name :
I'm not saying this is what was used,but that is really close to the back shot of Patty.Also as i stated before,the muscles on Patty look very real to me,so I don't know if this padding would look "real" or not.
edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyeddie68 because: content



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
Another thing, Patty has breasts which means that Bigfoot copulates face to face



Can you imagine if you shot video of a bigfoot copulating!? Well, let's just say it would be worth millions, and would cause groans and cause people to squirm in their seats the world over.

Kidding aside. There are video rigs that shoot 3D and 360 degree video that would go a long way to proving this since it would be much harder to fake this style video (stereoscopic and 3d global view video).

Bubl Cam

I think having trail cams running in certain areas is useful too.

Another thing to consider is that bigfoot might be subhuman, but could be utitlized by off world entities. That may explain the limited sightings and lack of evidence.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
Omah (Hupa 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.


A couple to give you an idea...Th omah "boss of the woods/mountain" of Hupa (N Calif.) and and Yurok (Klamath Riv.). This is bigfoot to you ie. the fake creature in the PG movie..?


Aside from beasts such as these, the Yuroks interviewed by Kroeber shortly after 1900 also believed that ghosts of dead could haunt the living and corpses sometimes came back to life (1925:47). This was not discussed in conversations I had during the 1970s, but Indians I knew often mentioned a creature known by the Yurok word uma'a and called "devil" or "Indian devil" in English. The uma'a were thought to live in dark, bushy thickets, and they had magical arrows of burning flint with which they could kill someone who passed nearby. The arrows (which come in sets of twelve or more) sometimes fell into the hands of humans, and then they could be used for sorcery.[3] A person who does this is also called an "Indian devil" and some are accused or suspected of practicing this form of black magic even today. Waterman cites at least one location that was known to have been frequented by uma'a around the turn of the century (1920:238)

(link)
(omah/uma'a terminology)


originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
Stick Indians (Northwest Coast Bigfeet)


Lets see...


Sasquatch believers claim that the old Indian tales prove that the giants have been well-known for centuries, but a U. W. anthropologist, Melville Jacobs, inclines to the view that "the Sasquatch is entirely a white man's myth, deriving from the European's greater anxiety about father figures."

Similarly, George Quimby, curator of the Burke Museum, suspects the Sasquatch could be traced to loggers' tales and pranks. Nevertheless, the Indian stories have certainly kept things alive. Don Smith, an Indian from Ariel, Washington, who is a close student of the tales as well as a carver and singer, says the oldest story pattern concerns a cannibal woman who likes to roast children.

She is called Tsunoqua (Dzu-na-kwa) by the Kwakiutl people of northern Vancouver Island, who, together with the more northern Tlingits, seem to have developed the most elaborate stories.

In the stories of other tribes, the giants are often merely renegades who have gone wild-"Stick Indians."


(link)


edit on 21-3-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
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.


One idle speculation that comes to mind: it seems certain that advanced language existed at a point in our species' history when there were still significantly different strains of hominids coexisting: Neanderthal, Denisovans, perhaps Homo Erectus, maybe even Gigantopithecus. It's within the realm of possibility that stories about that have been passed down all these generations and the idea in people's heads have led to misidentification or other tricks of the mind. I know how this skepticism must be received by those who have seen Bigfoot. However, I trust my own perceptions yet I know I have "seen" things that turned out to not actually exist in physical reality.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
Morris IS actually claiming that the costume below is the original that he used in the Patterson video....



that is an actual picture pulled directly from his costume website.


and as i'm sure you can tell, it looks nothing like the actual creature seen in the patterson video. sure it's got fur, two arms and two legs, but it's WAY, WAY off.

as for those asking about DNA testing and why nothing has come forward that is definitive about Bigfoot. well, that's a simple answer, it's classic government stonewalling. the national parks department and the army definitely knows about bigfoot. the parks department especially have a tight veil of secrecy in regards to bigfoot because of the many disappearances that have happened in our national parks. they can't obviously come forward and say that there is this highly intelligent creature roaming our national parks that has abducted men, women and children of various ages and that there's little to nothing that they do to address the issue because that would mean publicly admitting their existence, which in turn would mean that they would be admitting that we have been lied to for centuries.

if you've noticed we don't exactly have honestly in government here and that stretches and envelops our scientific community as well. both sectors aren't really keen on coming forward and honestly admitting that they've had knowledge of something that's been responsible for people going missing or if they're found at all, being found dead.

but, this thread isn't really about debating and proving the existence of Bigfoot, it's about the Patterson film specifically. In order to learn or prove that Bigfoot is real it's going to take a lot more than reading and posting on an ATS thread and that's the truth. It takes going out there, doing the leg work and seeing, hearing and learning for yourself. Anonymous words aren't going to change anyone's staunch opinion on the matter.



No. That bigfoot suit in the photo you show is a replica (listen to what he says in the video below).While it is made the same, as he claims, as the one for Patterson it is a replica and that is why the color is not a match. He shows things and makes points that make me think that this is the suit maker. It does look very much like the style of the bigfoot in the film and he points out the fabric stretches and that he added football shoulder pads that emulated muscles moving under the skin. Gotta say this looks like a match style-wise to me. Certainly the Patterson film suit doesn't look all that convincing compared to the even the bigfoot suit in Harry & the Henderson's.


edit on 21-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Morris also ties in with Bob Heironimus's story. Morris was supposedly contacted by Patterson through his ad that he ran on making Gorilla costumes for magicians and he shows the ad.

Part 1


edit on 21-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Munns shows this blowup of his 2009 scanning of the film, so I'm hoping it wasn't retouched. The Morris suit, made well before the Munns scans seems to match the face extremely close. Keep in mind Morris is showing a replica of the suit he made for Patterson, so I color corrected the fur to match what he supposedly sold him.

Keep in mind if Morris made the suit, there would be variations in his sewing work. Things that might make the head more peaked in the Patterson suit than the one he shows at his museum.

Look at the nose, the cheeks and the lower lip. It's uncanny how close it looks to the Patterson bigfoot.

The breasts in the Morris suit are also in the correct location. How could Morris even know the location since the Patterso film was so poor in quality for the DVD and other displays up until the Munns film scanning.

I watched some interviews with Bob Heironimus and he demonstrates the walk. His walk is seemingly a dead ringer for the Patterson bigfoot walk. Bob has an unusual lumbering gate in his walk. Even the guys doing motion capture as the bigfoot in "The Truth Behind: Bigfoot" documentary couldn't replicate the "walk" like Bob did. And they were practicing it.




edit on 21-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

as for those asking about DNA testing and why nothing has come forward that is definitive about Bigfoot. well, that's a simple answer, it's classic government stonewalling. the national parks department and the army definitely knows about bigfoot. the parks department especially have a tight veil of secrecy in regards to bigfoot because of the many disappearances that have happened in our national parks. they can't obviously come forward and say that there is this highly intelligent creature roaming our national parks that has abducted men, women and children of various ages and that there's little to nothing that they do to address the issue because that would mean publicly admitting their existence, which in turn would mean that they would be admitting that we have been lied to for centuries.


Calling complete bulls--t on this claim. This is a great example of story telling (ie. bs) that circulates around bigfoot pop culture.

So they just knowingly let bigfoot continue to be responsible for all manner of disappearances, rather than acknowledge that it exists.....that makes sense.......



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I would have to agree. The govt and park services might keep it quiet, but the families would be on the news in a hearbeat if they had someone stolen by a bigfoot.
edit on 21-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
It's not hard to see...a younger Bob H...in the right circumstances ie. a distant, shaky, blurry low res film...this wouldn't be far off the money.





posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
If you look, Munns also color corrects the image and also adds contrast. The suit might very well be brown instead of the bluish black.


edit on 21-3-2015 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Morris also ties in with Bob Heironimus's story. Morris was supposedly contacted by Patterson through his ad that he ran on making Gorilla costumes for magicians and he shows the ad.

Part 1



Here's a piece from MK Davis, who does some very solid analysis. Are you really thinking this was a guy wearing football shoulder pads under a suit? It looks nothing like that at all....www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
If you look, Munns also color corrects the image and also adds contrast. The suit might very well be brown instead of the bluish black.


Munns somewhat lost credibility when he stated that even if Gimlin explained that it was a hoax and how it was achieved, he would still refuse to believe it. Too many assumptions and a general lack of objectivity in his stuff. His claim that the film wasn't edited for example. There is no genuine way to be sure of that, without the original.

If you get a chance to have a look at Bob H wearing the Morris costume, it's worth taking note of the souls of the feet, colour etc. Uncanny similarity to PGF.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: shasta9600
Here's a piece from MK Davis, who does some very solid analysis. Are you really thinking this was a guy wearing football shoulder pads under a suit? It looks nothing like that at all....www.youtube.com...

Vivid imagination.

For every muscle, patchwork and suit malfunction can also be pointed out. He explores no other explanations anyway (eg. a man in a suit also has muscle), apart from overstating the detail that can be gleaned (pareidolia). The general scientific view would be the correct one, there is nothing about this movie that precludes a modern human in a suit.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
As far as I can tell Morris and Bob Heironimus are the only ones that have really gone public in a big way (Bob going on the TV show Lie Detector among others). Other stories are just second hand heresay. The Patterson film has some fairly believable people explaining it, in my opinion.

Take the story of Rendlesham Forest where James Pennisten claims to have viewed and touched a UFO. As you peel back the stories it seems that the more people interviewed, the more solid the story becomes. The Patterson story just seems to fall apart as you look closer.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join