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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The simplest explanation for Bigfoot is a hoax. The burden of proof does not lie with those who dismiss it as such, but with those who claim that Bigfoot is authentic. Certainly, I agree that there are species out there that have been declared extinct and even a bunch that have yet to be discovered, but suggesting that there is a species of animals this large living in CONUS without some signs of their existence, stretches credulity.

If there is one, there must be a population. If there is a population, there must be signs of their nesting, hunting, gathering, excreting, travelling, etc. There must be some evidence beyond a grainy film and a few footprints. One would think that capitalism alone would spawn some effort on the part of someone to find a specimen and provide the proof we are looking for.

Here in New Mexico, when conditions are rough for the bears, they start showing up in places where they aren't particularly welcome, hunting for food. The same with moose in the northeast. These animals aren't so shy that hunger doesn't drive them to a food source when times get rough. Currently in the northwest there is a drought. One would think that conditions would cause Bigfeet to encroach upon human habitat, at least occasionally.

[edit on 05/5/10 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The simplest explanation for Bigfoot is a hoax.


Actually that's not the simplest explanation. That explanation takes a horde of people running around from Nepal to Canada from Florida to California and pretty much all spots in between in some type of monkey-man suit tricking experienced hunters, and indigenous folks and striding across two-lane highways in three steps. In addition it takes another (or the same) horde of people roaming the backwoods of America with fake bigfeet stampers making footprints on the outside chance some shmoe will wander by the same remote and almost inaccessible plot of deep forest and see the prints and report them.

The easier answer is - it's a creature. Then you don't have to employ airplanes, luggage for your bigfeet stamps and the outside chance a deerhunter will drop your ass out of fear.




The burden of proof does not lie with those who dismiss it as such, but with those who claim that Bigfoot is authentic.


This I agree with. If any one requests we say "yes, there is a creature we euphemistically call bigfoot", then the person requesting we say so has the burden of first proving to us that there is, in fact, such a creature.



Certainly, I agree that there are species out there that have been declared extinct and even a bunch that have yet to be discovered, but suggesting that there is a species of animals this large living in CONUS without some signs of their existence, stretches credulity.

If there is one, there must be a population. If there is a population, there must be signs of their nesting, hunting, gathering, excreting, travelling, etc. There must be some evidence beyond a grainy film and a few footprints. One would think that capitalism alone would spawn some effort on the part of someone to find a specimen and provide the proof we are looking for.


Okay, but here's where you start playing some disingenuous tricks. You say you want evidence, but then all of a sudden footprints are not evidence. You also intimate the Patterson video is not evidence. What about the hair samples that have been tested by the FBI? Are they not evidence? They can't be categorized.

Does some one have to kill one of these creatures and drive it in on the hood of their car to the local checkpoint in order to satisfy your criteria? That would be a bloody shame. My interest in this is that, if there is in fact such a creature, it needs to be proven so that there can be swift action to protect them.



Here in New Mexico, when conditions are rough for the bears, they start showing up in places where they aren't particularly welcome, hunting for food. The same with moose in the northeast. These animals aren't so shy that hunger doesn't drive them to a food source when times get rough. Currently in the northwest there is a drought. One would think that conditions would cause Bigfeet to encroach upon human habitat, at least occasionally.


Read the sightings reports - it's there. Bigfoot sightings have taken place in people's yards, near larger communities, etc. This phenomenon is shown in certain sightings.



[edit on 5-11-2005 by Valhall]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well...

If bigfoot were a hoax, do you really think that the hoaxer would go through the trouble of putting dermal ridges on their "fake feet" ?

Jimmy Chilcutt a forensic expert from Texas has found dermal ridges in some of the plaster casts...


"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said. "It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin."


news.nationalgeographic.com...

As far as scat goes, yes some have been found, and analized case in point...


The other case of which I have first hand knowledge is a quantity of which was shipped in a plastic container with dry ice to me in New York, for trans-shipment to Professor W. C. Osman Hill, then senior scientist at the London Zoological Society. This specimen shook up the scientist. I wish we had space to give you their report in full. It is quite amazing. The points of significance in it are as follows: In general, this fecal mass did not in any way resemble that of any known North American animal. On the other hand, it did look humanoid, but it had some peculiar features, as if the lower bowel had a spiral twist. But above all, it was composed exclusively of vegetable matter and this as far as could be identified of local California fresh water plants. The real clincher, however was that it contained the eggs and desiccated remains of certain larvae otherwise known only in (a) some North American Indian tribal groups in the Northwest, (b) pigs imported from south China, (c) human beings in country districts in southwest China and (d) in pigs in that same area.


www.n2.net...

Hair samples have also been found...


Update, November 3, 1999:


I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such).


www.bfro.net...




[edit on 11-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i've been looking for a good clip of the patterson film, but everyone here keeps on posting a link to the same site, and for some reason, i can't view it, does anyone have a link different from the same one everyone provided in this thread, it would be much appreciated. thanks.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
People always say "why haven't we seen one?"



During the 1990s, more species of hoofed animals have been discovered or rediscovered in the Annamite Mountains than are known to have become extinct worldwide in the past few hundred years. These include the saola, the giant barking deer and what is probably the small rooseveltorum barking deer, which was first described in 1929 then vanished until rediscovered in 1995. Scientists speculate that ice age glaciers during the Pleistocene Epoch affected the distribution of forests upon which species like these depend. Small populations of survivors evolved in isolation in this Noah's Ark lost in time.


THAT is just in the country of Vietnam which is 325,360 sq km. United States is 9,158,960 sq km by comparison and Canada is 9,220,970 sq km.

On another thread other quetions of a similar nature come up and so I will copy my post here.




Originally posted by RavenX
Why can't one of the research groups get a few helicopters and thermal cameras and section off part of the wilderness in north canada and do flybys looking for bigfoot?

It has been done in Washington State.



Rick Noll of Edmonds, Wash., told the audience of an expedition in September 2000 to try to collect Bigfoot evidence. Armed with audio recordings meant to simulate calls, fruit to serve as bait, a thermal imaging camera and "very, very gross-smelling" pheremone chips developed from gorilla and human bacteria, Noll's team tried to lure a Bigfoot out toward them. They didn't see one, but they succeeded in making a cast of an impression that Noll believes to be of the torso of a prone Sasquatch.Noll said some counties have passed ordinances prohibiting the hunting of Bigfoot and, in one case, attempting to declare it an endangered species.

www.rfthomas.clara.net...


As for Northern Canada? Well, lets just take British Columbia is 364,764 sq. miles in size. California is 163,707 square miles, Oregon is 98,386 square miles, and then add a Wyoming 97,818 square miles and you still have room. Texas is 268,601 square miles leaving room for Michigan (96,810 square miles) or just about any other state to fit.

For you non-Americans, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is 94,525 sq miles which means that ONE province is more than three times the size.

Population is 3,907,738 for British Columbia (2001). Los Angeles is close to 10 million. London is just over 7 million.

Now, you think the hunt would be that easy? Consider that the almost 4 million people are almost all at the southern edge (American border) and that everything else is quite remote. Now add Alaska (586,412 square miles) which is 1/5th the size of the entire United States. Add the Yukon Territories (186,660 sq. mi.), Northwest Territories (519,734 sq mi), and Territories of Nunavut (350,000 sq mi).

Also there are the northern Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec areas to consider. Searching all of the land area is highly improbable. Now consider that in recent years, new animals have been discovered in much smaller countries, that were completely unknown until the last 4-5 years. Doesn't make things so impossible that a creature with a slightly higher intellect, could not be found easily.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Well...

If bigfoot were a hoax, do you really think that the hoaxer would go through the trouble of putting dermal ridges on their "fake feet" ?




Why not? The people who made the alien autopsy film went to a lot of trouble to make the film look authentic. A hoaxer is not necessarily an unsophisticated individual. In fact, a good hoaxer is probably intelligent and sophisticated. But, then again, maybe some are just cagey:

www.katu.com...

Those who have the diligence to wade through an academic article might find some solace in this report:

www.photekimaging.com...


[edit on 05/5/11 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Grady...

I'm not talking about someone making a "fake film" for money which I belive the Alien Autopsy was done for, heck if I remember right Patterson sold his to John Green for only $1500.00 ( doesn't sound to me like he was in it for the money )...

So you're saying that someone would have thought of putting the ridges on thier fake feet that would have fooled a expert in forensics ?

Maybe you haven't seen the cast's, and please note that these casts were taken at different locations, and in different years...


www.n2.net...


[edit on 11-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Maybe you haven't seen the cast's, and please note that these casts were taken at different locations, and in different years...


And they match just like fingerprints. One in Washington and one in California, I believe...that were taken 20 years apart. They also show scars.

Pretty interesting stuff.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
www.phobe.com...

Maybe this will help in any future discoveries.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
PB&J...

Got another back shot for ya...



Zoom in and you can see the back muscles, and glutes...

Spacecowboy...

You need Quick Time to view the stablized clip...

Zed...

Yes, the cast ridges are interesting, just like finger prints...



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The arms of the Patterson creature, or Queen Kong as I have dubbed her, do not hang as far down the creature's thighs as they should if she were human. But that's because her legs are disproportionately short (compared to a human), so her torso is disproportionately long. According to my informal measurement, her torso is 54% of her (straightened out) height, as opposed to Bob Heironimus's 48%. Also, the degree to which her arms appear to hang low varies in different frames. In some they hang lower than in the frame being shown as evidence that they do not.

There is a good illustrated discussion of arm length in a recent thread titled "Arm span to height ratio" at www.bigfootforums.com...

Wikipedia's entry on the film has some bad errors, such as stating that Patterson's partner Gimlin is dead. (I corrected that one a couple of days ago.)

Harry Kemball in 1996 claimed that Patterson had made a deathbed confession to his son, but had no source for this statement. He made a bad technical error about the type of film used, and about Patterson boasting about choosing "muddy ground" (not at all so) to make the tracks in. For this and other reasons, no one, not even knowledgeable film skeptics, has taken him seriously. (Correction--CSICOP's Inquiring Minds site treats it as gospel, refusing to remove it despite my protests about its flimsiness. See www.inquiringminds.org... ) For more on the Kemball affair, see Chris Murphy's "Meet the Sasquatch," pp. 84-86.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Roger K]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Howdy Roger...good post on the arm length...

PB&J, couldn't really get a good animation on the back muscles, but would the sholder blade movement do ?



Would've enlarged it, this was taken from the stablizied .mov and I lost too much quaility after enlargement...



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Nice stabilizing... Thats the best I've ever seen from that film... I always thought that was a male Sasquatch... But after checking out this video you can clearly see its a female! It has boobs!!! big ones at that!! Nice work..

[edit on 15-6-2005 by menacer]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
OMG!!!! ITS WALKING ON A WHITE RIVERBED!!!! and its gotta be like 15-30+ years old and come one, whos feet are gonna be the right color after that?????




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join