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 comparison gif. New to me.

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: everyone

You see what you see. I can't argue with that.

But I would urge you to take another look and use your mouse pointer to see where things are in relation to each other. The camera has a slightly different perspective (the camera in the original is higher by half the width of the log in the foreground), but seems to be dead on in the center of the frame where it counts.

When I did that I noticed that the ape's right foot came down only a few inches behind the human's left foot.

If you see a suit, I can't help you.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
Have you all seen the series "Lloyd Pye Explains Bigfoot"? I've seen people call him a crank (and worse), but that seems to be the last refuge of folks who have no argument.

I'd also recommend "Everything You Know Is Wrong" - same guy. I'll post the links if anybody is interested.

I'm just a guy out here in the sticks, but the information he presents makes perfect biological sense to me as to what the animals are and where they came from.


What's really interesting is the connection Lloyd Pye makes between Sasquatches and neanderthals... I recalled having seen a video from BBC Science where a woman discusses what neanderthals would have sounded like and then has a voice actor imitate the voice. Listen to that and then listen to the supposed Sasquatch speech below. They're nearly identical.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I had never heard Sierra Sounds before, although I had heard about it. Very interesting how these guys were able to get them to engage. Seems like they experienced something very rare. Fortunate that they caught it.

The "Samurai chatter" is extremely interesting. Hard to tell if it's language or just noise making.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




They changed it.


Nah...it's just your plain old Mandela effect working its magic


I'd wonder, but the whole family watched it, and I am sure I even commented on it in here someplace. I just about fell off my seat, seeing the changes. Very weird!

Not the only change of that sort, though......Had an old copy of a book called Carnosaur, which I got sometime in the 80's. In the book, there is a scene where a tarbosaurus is roaming around a town, and goes into a backyard, and is spotted by a kid with a fish tank in his room. He reports to the parents, who don't believe him, and the dinosaur ends up eating the dog, and drinking from their pool. Sound familiar?? Watching [i/The Lost World/i], I was stunned to see that identical scene in the movie. I couldn't believe they'd stolen it from the book! Went and got the book as soon we we got home, and showed the hubby and the kids. They remember this clearly. I went online looking to see if they had gotten permission from the author for that scene, and found nothing. Posted about it on imdb and maybe a few other places. Some years later, went to look for the book, to re-read it, and it was gone. Poof, vanished. Found another copy in a used book store, looks like the same edition - same cover for certain - and lo and behold, guess what scene was missing from th book?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I think you and I could take this thread waaaay off in the weeds.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: trollz

I had never heard Sierra Sounds before, although I had heard about it. Very interesting how these guys were able to get them to engage. Seems like they experienced something very rare. Fortunate that they caught it.

The "Samurai chatter" is extremely interesting. Hard to tell if it's language or just noise making.



A guy named R. Scott Nelson, a Navy crypto-linguist, examined the recordings. He gave a long talk where he explained his belief that it was actual language. Just look up "scott nelson bigfoot" or something to that effect on YouTube, there's a bunch of videos of him.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: trollz

I think you and I could take this thread waaaay off in the weeds.


Yeah we could



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Thanks for the heads up on Scott Nelson. Cool stuff.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Here's the illustration I've been looking for.




posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bbarkow

It looks to me like the head is way too high in that illustration. Sasquatches are generally reported to seem as if they have no necks, as can be seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film. Here's a comparison pic:

edit on 7/21/2016 by trollz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I agree about the neck placement, but looking at the film it seems that the shape of the cranium in the illustration is pretty accurate.

Check out 5:30 on the Munns "bikini lady" film on the first page of the thread.
edit on 21-7-2016 by bbarkow because: add some stuff



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That can be safely said. Yes.

My own experience aside, every description of Sasquatch would support that supposition.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
Look at the size difference. Bob Hieronymus wore that suit? He's something like 5' 5" tall.


I'm not sure, but I think the top of the red line represents the top of her head. Every other feature in the gif seems to line up perfectly as they flash back and forth. Whadda ya'll think?



Bob Hieronimus is 6'1". It is generally agreed even amongst bigfooters that "Patty" is closer to the camera than Maclaren in these pics, giving an illusion. The most reasonable estimates have "Patty" not too much over 6' if standing straight, at any rate, significantly shorter than the person in this image (6'6") and entirely consistent with Hieronimus being in the suit. The "foot as a ruler" method also shows "Patty to be about 5'4"/5'-6" while hunched over which would also make him a little over 6' if standing straight. Though there is no way to really measure this accurately. They were taken from different positions, by different people, with different cameras, with subjects standing in different positions.

This size corrected gif gives a more realistic view, thanks to someone with a bit of (claimed) photogrammetry experience. It clearly shows "Patty" was taking a closer path, combined with a closer camera position (as shown by log in foreground) both of which should make "Patty" appear comparatively larger, yet is still shorter than Maclaren.


It would make you wonder why, if Maclaren was following "Patty's" supposed tracks, were the tracks in a position inconsistent with the path taken in Patterson's film? The claimed "tracks" are very dubious for many reasons.

That's also why no one has ever seen and scrutinised an original film which would have verified when it was developed. It has been shown that his story is not really possible. Patterson wasn't silly.

Most scientists (apart from a few 'footer scientists) going all the way back to Napier (who thought bigfoot itself was likely to exist, based on sighting reports) in around '73 realise that it is human size and proportion with an exaggerated human gait. Though the physical inconsistencies it displays mean it isn't something that evolved in nature, it's a hoax, as also indicated by all of the circumstantial evidence. That's why science generally has little interest in it (apart from lack of evidence indicating it exists).

The only man ever to publicly claim to be wearing the suit and who was good friends with Gimlin (Gimlin was riding his horse at the time) has claimed this to friends and workmates since 1970. It was common knowledge where they worked in Yakima that they were involved in a bigfoot hoax. The discrepancies in story between the claimants (Patterson-Gimlin) are also huge lol.

It is also worth noting that the strongest science supporter of "Patty" being huge (Meldrum) simply repeats claims that have been debunked and withdrawn by the very person who originally made them. He also thought this one was 9' tall and couldn't be a man in a suit, until it was explained to him by the people who made it, that it was fake. Seems quite gullible.



Not to mention this.





edit on 25-7-2016 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yeah, there's a fair amount of "hinkiness" inherent in the research. Todd Standing (pictured) fooled a lot of people for a while. Some of his research may be legit, but is tainted.

Have you taken a look at Bill Munns' website? He seems to me to have done some very solid work on analyzing this film.

themunnsreport.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbarkow
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yeah, there's a fair amount of "hinkiness" inherent in the research. Todd Standing (pictured) fooled a lot of people for a while. Some of his research may be legit, but is tainted.

Have you taken a look at Bill Munns' website? He seems to me to have done some very solid work on analyzing this film.

themunnsreport.com...


I find Munns work unconvincing. Somehow it feels like he is starting with a conclusion, then trying to make the evidence fit. Like all things bigfoot, it is rarely offered to people with relevant expertise for evaluation via peer reviewed journals and so forth.

I did see him participate on a forum amongst people that do have an interest and understanding in certain aspects relative to specifics of the camera and film, optics etc. He didn't fare too well and it was explained in the end that he simply didn't have all of the available data to do what he thinks he can do.

That this film is still held as the best evidence for bigfoot by the bigfoot community, doesn't look promising. Really, the best evidence seems to be that people are seeing something. It's not enough to convince science in general though.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




That this film is still held as the best evidence for bigfoot by the bigfoot community, doesn't look promising. Really, the best evidence seems to be that people are seeing something. It's not enough to convince science in general though.


Agreed that there is plentiful evidence without the film. Even if the film is a hoax (and I'm nearly certain that it is not), it was at the very least a catalyst for people to get out and try to collect more evidence.

It's off the subject, but unless someone can call the press before dumping a body on the steps of a major university's biology department, its existence will be buried. There are too many humans who don't need another wide-ranging, possibly rare species running around out in the money - I mean the forest.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bbarkow The opening post below shoes eye line up between human and Patty and how the skull does not fit the ape womans profile.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join