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 Footage Stabilized and Analyzed (from ATSNN)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The length of the arms argument doesn't seem to add up, IMHO.

Looking at the footage again, the arms don't appear to be overly long. The position of the elbow appears to be just above the waist, consistent with human skeletal structure. The hands appear to swing at mid-thigh level, again consistent with human biology. Stand up straight and put your arms by your sides, your hands will reach to mid-thigh. Hunch over a little and they will swing just above knee-level.


Skeletons of primates, however, hang well below knee level.



Add to this length the extended fingers of a large suit 'glove' and the arm length doesn't appear to be anomalous. Also, the fingers never seem to clench or change position, a movement which would be difficult with a suit with slightly extended fingers. Try clenching your fingers while wearing a large glove; the glove will simply flip in half.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well...

That's well and good...but stand up straight, hunch over like the creature AND bend your arm the same as the creature, guess where it ends up, a little below the hip...



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I just watched the stabilized video over and over again. I must say the feet jumped out at me before I read the posts after the link.

I think the calves, delts, and lats show absolutely no musculature or definition and I think that goes a long way to prove it fake. The calves look like they just go straight down into the feet. There is no calf muscle. Either he has really fat ankles, or the suit should have been tailored better and taken in around the calves.

I have a husky and I can see the equivilent of the delts and lats (the shoulder and back muscles) on her when she walks. And she's got a very thick coat. But I see no deltoid or lat definition on the back of that thing. That again tells me it's a suit.

As far as turning the whole upper torso to look, I think if you have a loose fitting mask on that is the only way to get it to turn. If the guy inside simply turned his head, it would rotate inside the mask and he wouldn't be able to see anything.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Here ya go PB&J, it's a still...



Look again...



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Again, the arms do not appear to be any longer than a human's, bending or no bending. Nor do the elbows appear to be in unhumanlike positions. A couple of inches of extra hand length (and that's a stretch) could be explained by the finger portion of the suit being a little longer than the hands of the wearer.

As for the torso and shoulders twisting with the head, when he* turns his gaze back to the path, the head turning motion is quite sharp and free, suggesting light neck and upper back musculature - inconsistent with the perceived weight of the subject.

*Looking again, I notice rather pronounced, saggy breasts on ol' Bigfoot there. Perhaps it's a she.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well...

She is a she...

As far as the leg muscles try this...




[edit on 3-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
In the second pic (the animated gif) the hamstring looks real, but not the quads or the calf. The first pic shows what could either be the calf muscle or a ripple or crease in the back of the pants leg from the walking movement. When you watch the video you can't really see that, it just appears to go straight down to the feet.

Are there any other stills that show the bigfoot in a different position with calf muscles? Say another stride or two after that one? Preferably one with the leg in a different position so we can see if the calf flexes up and down as the thing walks.

Do you have any stills that show any definition in the upper back, again more than one pose?

When the stills are blown up they become too blurry to see any kind of real detail, we're just seeing the colors approximated by your computer.

If you can show me some pics like I described above I'll glady admit I'm wrong about those muscle groups.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Well...

I'll see what I can come up with...

The only still that I have that has a good shot of the back is this...



It's not much, but I'll see if I can find any more...


Did you by any chance look ant the left leg ?


[edit on 3-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
While I'm looking...

It seems you are compairing this creature's musclature, with a humans...

Now I must ask, is this creature a human, ape, hybred, or other ?

And do we know the musclature, of these animals, and what they should look like while animated ?

You've stated that the musclature, doesn't look right, are you saying for a human, or for a different animal ??



What I'm trying to get at is this, this creature may be nothing we've seen before, so how do we know what to look for in how it's animated ?

But anyway I'll keep looking for, your answers...



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Jedi has posted the best picture of Bigfoot's foot, yet. Observe:



Now, take note of the feet of other primates:



Bigfoot's feet seem adapted to nothing, except making very big footprints.

I'm not absolutely certain, but I think this might be Steve Wozniak.



www....-------------------------/library/cryptozoology/bigfoot/


[edit on 05/5/3 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Ohhh...Grady...Grady...Grady...

Who ever said this thing was a Primate ( monkey/gorilla) ??


I see what you are getting at, but...I don't think it is a primate...but a humanoid creature...


And the pic I posted ( and I said it was ) was a bad pic, I've seen high resolution pics that showed the toes...




[edit on 3-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Jedi

You are suggesting that this humanoid creature is not of this Earth. Every "humanoid" creature on the planet, of which I am aware, is a primate and all primates are descended from a common ancestor, according to accepted theory. You are suggesting that there is a creature out there that is unrelated to all extant and extinct species known. Does this creature have no ancestors? Is it descended from the ancestors of bears? Moose? Buffalo? Wookiee?






[edit on 05/5/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Nooo...

I'm sugesting that it is a Humaniod creature that we don't know about...

Dude, I'm not that loony yet...

There are many animals that have yet to be discovered Grady...

What I'm suggesting is that this creature, is somethingwe have yet to see...


If you get what I mean...



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
What I'm suggesting is that this creature, is somethingwe have yet to see...

If you get what I mean...


Mmmmmm.
Sure thing, Jedi.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Jedi has posted the best picture of Bigfoot's foot, yet. Observe:




Let me just say something here Grady. Notice how the bottom of it's foot is the same color as the ground. When I walk in the dirt with bare feet, guess what, the bottoms of my feet are covered with dirt...........and they're the same color as the soil I just walked on............oh the horrah!!!!!







That face looks pretty real to me.

I think Jedi has it right when he says that we don't really know what kind of creature we're dealing with here and what it's links are. How can we so blindly call it a "primate"????

Peace



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Hi, I'm hoping some of you who have more knowledge in this area can help me find more of the following. This pic is described as follows:

"The image on the left is from a first gen copy of the Patterson film. The image on the right was made by Bruce Bonney from the master reel. The right image has had its abberant colors removed to boost sharpness."



Just wondering if anybody has links to more of Bruce Bonney's work with the Patterson film? This is the first time I had read anything on this and I'm not having much luck pulling up more info.

Thank you.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I'm not sure about the lower calf muscle point, if you look at gorilla's they look similarly "wrong" in my eyes...





[edit on 10/5/2005 by Slashpepper]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slashpepper
I'm not sure about the lower calf muscle point, if you look at gorilla's they look similarly "wrong" in my eyes...




[edit on 10/5/2005 by Slashpepper]


I'd like to point out something else in this pic that looks "similarly wrong". At least one poster above rejected the Patterson film based on the "shoe-sole" appearance of the bottom of the alleged B.F.'s foot...



Please note the "fake" "shoe-sole" type appearance of the gorilla's foot. Slashpepper - thanks for sharing that photo it helps to re-muddy the issue in a couple of ways. LOL



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The other image from Slashpepper's post. I think I see his point about the lower leg of the gorilla being like the lower leg of Bigfoot. However, this does not convince me that Bigfoot is not a man in a monkey suit. I think Bigfoot's face looks like a real face because if is a real man's face. Of course, as some have suggested, any comparison of Bigfoot to extant primates is pointless, because Bigfoot is another class of mammal altogether, assuming that Bigfoot's chest actually shows mammaries.







[edit on 05/5/10 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Of course, as some have suggested, any comparison of Bigfoot to extant primates is pointless, because Bigfoot is another class of mammal altogether, assuming that Bigfoot's chest actually shows mammaries.

[edit on 05/5/10 by GradyPhilpott]


uhhh....there's no assuming to it! That there Sasquatchy has hooters and there's no two ways about it. Nipples are visible my man.

I'm speculating a size 60DD...but that's from a distance mind you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join