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 bigfoot stabilised ~fake

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Watching this footage again the fur was also a problem for me. Notice the hair on the . looks like its been combed?

Like I said, I saw a bigfoot one night and I can assure you the thing had never used a hairbrush in its life. The hair was matted and nasty looking Like it had been wallowing in a pig stye.

Than again, the footage is of a female bigfoot so maybe she has a hairdresser.

Love and light,

Wupy




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
That's interesting mrwupy...do you realise that your statment, that the hair seems "combed" is different from the views of F215 ?


The key to this is in the "creature's" fur. Real hair or fur on an animal will have a relatively regular direction to it, resulting from the position of the follicles that will, by design, allow the smoothest passage through the animal's surroundings. This is exactly what you don't see in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. The fur is going every which way, like a shag carpet, even in specific anatomical areas, where one would expect to see some coherence.


I really wish you debunkers would get your stories straight ...

Ahh...me...but none of you debunkers can explain how in 1967, a person of no real monetary means, can create a suit that shows the muscle movement that is shown in the film...



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Ahh...me...but none of you debunkers can explain how in 1967, a person of no real monetary means, can create a suit that shows the muscle movement that is shown in the film...



I beleive I read somewhere that bags of water were used beneath the suit to simulate muscular movement. Dont need to bill gates to get a few sealed bags of water mate.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Sorry...

But are you reffering to Charlie Gemora's gorillia suits ?


[edit on 15-1-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Also...got a link to prove your statement ?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm not trying to debunk anything, remember, i'm the one that says he actually saw a bigfoot in real life. It was nasty and its hair was all matted and messed up.

When I said the hair looked combed I said it has the hair on the .. The rest of the thing looked pretty messed up but the hair on the . looked combed.

Does that clear things up for you?

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I must say, when I first saw this initial post and viewed the stabilized footage I thought "Well damn...it turns out to be nothing more than a hoax." It convinced me that it was a hoax and made me sad, because I truly believed it was real. However I still do believe in bigfoot, why is it so hard to believe that a primate lives in North America? But I digress...back to my point.

After reading the conversation that has come about, I really think that you debunkers are shooting yourselves in the foot. I am LESS convinced now that it's fake than when I just read the beginning!

Jedi_Master has provided a sound argument full of many valid points. Everyone else is relying on false truths, premises, and what-ifs. The debunkers are also contradicting themselves left and right. Additionally when it is discovered that a statement of theirs is wrong, they basically shrug it off. (IE: The hairy arse) In light of that, it seems like the debunkers are grasping at any sort of hint of incontinuity they can.

The only additional good argument against the footage that has come about was when the new guy posted about some spectral analysis, and indigo dye being used. I would love to see the results of that.

But all this non-sense about messed up fur, combed fur, seams, water bags...Wow, instar & wumpy you guys are struggling. I have yet to hear either of you talk in length about the muscle movements or the fact that this was made in 1967. The only argument I've heard is that there were water bags...Yeah right. I guess they used water bags over the entire body to account for muscle movement.


**Also to address whoever mentioned the fact that it walks exactly like a human. This is a new species we're trying to account for, quite possibly a missing link. How can you tell us anything about how it walks. The fact that it DOES walk in a very human says something. For an unrecorded species of hominid, somewhere between man and ape, wouldn't that be exactly what you WOULD look for? Please refine your arguments, you're digging your own graves in this debate.

EDIT: Unfortunately I still have a few concerns about the legitmacy of this footage though. Jedi_Master, or anyone else, could you tell me why the bigfoot merely WALKS away instead of running? In the wild, most creatures run at the first sign of possible danger. Let's view it from both sides. If it were a man in a suit it didn't run because of huge bulky pads, and for added effect. But if it were a bigfoot why not run?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Ajax]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
After looking at it for many hours I seemed to have discovered an ear. When it starts to turn it . it appears as a black spot then you can follow the anonamly all the way through the turn and back. Also the way the Sasquatch moves its knees. The creature moves its feet to 90 degree angles then sets it down seems like its sneaking because thats how I move when I'm sneaking up on deer.


Jay

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If you happen to get the time read the book, BIGFOOT! The True Story of Apes in America, by Loren Coleman. It gives alot of usefully information on indian legends he references, along with some old time sightings. Also (forgive me here, been awhile since i have read it), but it goes over some fake sightings, the work by Jeff Meldrum ( one of the first to spot dermal ridges, next to Grover Krantz who which i do belive was the first to reconize dermal ridges). I tend to think that Bigfoot maybe a relative of the giganto's, also I agree with mister coleman that there seems to be two species in the US. One in the Pacific Northwest which is the typical Bigfoot, we all now and love.
Then a smaller maybe supspecies in the south region of the US, which I belive tend to be a little more aggressive, from the reports and from what I read in that book(again i could be, wrong about the aggressiveness, been about 3 month's since i read it). Ethier way we look at it, a creature of this size can actually hide in the wildreness and we would never see it. This is a direct quote from the book, and pretains to the wood bison.

" The largest land animal in Canada, the wood bison, had been disappearing from all over North America for centuries when the last animal were officially declared extinct in 1940. Then in 1957, a wonderful discovery occured. During a regular air patrol, federal wildlife officers flying over a remote part of the Wood Buffalo National Park, Alerta, spotted a small, isolated herd of two hundred wood bison. They had gone completely unnoticed for decades-and had kept physically and genetically separate from their cousins the plains bison, so familiar to Americans as the buffalo. The wood bison were found about one hundred miles from a new road being built from Alberta to the artic circle and within fifty miles of a mission staion that had existed for a hundred years. "

Now this Discovery while 47 years ago does demstate that a large species known to man, can and will hide away, even though we are right there and we never see it. Think about it like this just because we have roads through most of the US doesn't mean we have explored every inch of the USA. In the woods if something doesn't want to be found it could and most likely hide from us. Think about it, this creature must have been around since we crawled out of the cave and walked away. It has probally seen the damage we did to the Wolly Mammoth, and various other Ice Age species. So it has probally taken to a much more cautious approach to us, ie hiding in cave's, and only really coming out at night. Just a few thoughts I figured I'd throw out there.


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Jay]


Jay

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ok had to do this in two posts for some reason when i tired to edit it and put in a web link to the wood bison, it would delete my whole post.

Wood Bison Link
www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca...


Another Link even though its on BFRO Site, it does go into alot of the supposed debunks, and other stuff.
www.bfro.net...


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Jay]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ajax

EDIT: Unfortunately I still have a few concerns about the legitmacy of this footage though. Jedi_Master, or anyone else, could you tell me why the bigfoot merely WALKS away instead of running? In the wild, most creatures run at the first sign of possible danger. Let's view it from both sides. If it were a man in a suit it didn't run because of huge bulky pads, and for added effect. But if it were a bigfoot why not run?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Ajax]


I really wish I could give a definate answer for that, but the key is most animals, I don't know if you do any hunting, or spend any time in the woods, but one of my buddies told me once where he inadvertantly stumbled across a black bear, and was downwind from it,he told that the bear looked him square in the eye, sniffed the wind and turn and walked away not run...

Now a far as this film I can only speculate, I do remember reading reports that Paterson was downwind of what he was filming, so maybe the creature has poor eyesite, couldn't see real good and couldn't smell, because it was upwind from Patterson, and therefore didn't persieve a threat...



[edit on 18-1-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well if it was faked, whoever was in the suit must have been atleast six and a half feet tall or taller. What struck me about the Patterson film whenever I've viewed it was it's shear size. It looks like Shaquille O'Neal in that suit.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I'm still a little put off by the fact that editors, photographers etc, havent been about to completely debunk the footage or prove it's authenticity one way or another. I personally could not care one way or another if it's real or not, I just want a conclusive 100% result. I thought the quality was good enough to enlarge on various part's of the bigfoot/costume to determine it's authenticity, maybe not after all. I certainly thought a few good closeups on the face would reveal whether it was mask/human face w/ make up/ or bigfoot face, I guess not though.

Let's assume it's fake with all the doubts about it and the remarks of Patterson's family suggesting it was a fake.

It still doesn't disprove a ton of other very credible sightings by witnesses in rural areas, that were born and raised in rural areas. I think this rural people or hick/farm/country people are more often more credible then someone from a big city, since these people are mostly simple and not wanting publicity or to make a profit of the sighting.

From what I know theres plenty of indigenous native american tribes that truely believe in the creature's existence as a spirtual figure and not just bs folklore.


SMR

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
It dosent "make" it fake, it is already. It just stops the deliberate camera shake so you can more clearly see its just a guy in a suit.

I dont know about that.
In the original video here you can see there is NO deliberate camera shake as compared to the one seen here at the moment it starts.
In the 'stabilized' video,it starts where in the original is stable and not shaking.
At 4 seconds in the original is about the begining in the 'stabilized' video and both are the same,no shaking.
All the 'stabilized' one is,is zoomed in.There is no shaking to fool anyone at the point where the new stabilized video tries to debunk this.
I would post a screencap to show where my points are,but for the life of me I cant get the video to show.Anyone know how to get video screencaps?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Why do the "breast" not bounce or swing as "it" walks? Also why is the face not all one color? it appears that there is a gap above the mouth and above the eyes of human skin color. like a ski mask.

screen shot of frame from vid







[edit on 063131p://24016 by instar]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
There are certainly some valid arguments for the authenticity of the video. The only elements that give me pause are the . shape and the transition from the upper glutes into the lower back. I don't buy the water bag theory either. I have read some of the old stories and Native American legends and, well, 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong. However, I do question the coincidence that Patterson and Gimlin went out looking for Sasquatch and LO, ON THE SEVENTH DAY, THEY FOUND HIM/HER! In my earlier post, I was merely pointing out my issues with the footage. I do not presume to speak for anyone else. Lumping the "debunkers" together and hoping that they will "get their stories straight" assumes collusion, which is not occurring here.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Would you really expect it to be ?




Why isn't this baboon's face the same color ( and I'm not saying it is a baboon, just pointing out that this happens in the animal world ) ?

Also...yes they do bounce, remember seeing an animated .gif that shows it, I'll see if I can dig it up...



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Why do the "breast" not bounce or swing as "it" walks? Also why is the face not all one color? it appears that there is a gap above the mouth and above the eyes of human skin color. like a ski mask.

screen shot of frame from vid







[edit on 063131p://24016 by instar]

Wha!?! First of all its breasts do sway a little, its not jogging you know. And second of all maybe it has a beard and eyebrows. Chimps have human skin color, apes have human shin color even those hairless dogs have human skin color so your accusations are pointless



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
That is, more specifically, a Mandrill (Papio sphinx).


d1k

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
First off Instar, you're doing a miserable job if you're trying to debunk this, you really sound like you're reaching in a lot of your posts, it also seems you are trying too hard.

Secondly I watched a special on Discovery just a couple months ago in which they showed this footage. Strange they did not say it was proven a fake long ago, in fact they said it was one of the best footage that shows a living unknown species alive today.

One of the biggest points they made was that no human on Earth walks with his knees constantly bent like that, they also determined the size of the ape as 8+ feet tall. There was other points but these were some of the more notable ones. So we have a guy in a suit in the 50s or 70s? which ever it really does not matter, maintaining a funky walk with bent knees that towers at 8+ feet?

There are lots of good arguments on Bigfoots exisiting and not existing, please save us from your Judge Judy shamble of a debunk.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join