Patterson lied about being a liar - Convincing new photo!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Hmmm. I watched a TV show late last year on the Patterson film. In it, the had a man that claimed to be the guy in the big foot suit. He even demonstrated the walk. His gate matched pretty close to what the patterson film shows.

I think there is enough wilderness in America to support animals we dont know about, but I think the Patterson footage was faked. As stated above, it WAS released during the Planet of the Apes craze tha swept the nation at the time.


I also watched that documentary.
The man's name is Bob Heironimus.
He's also been interviewed by Greg Long who wrote a book about it, trying to debunk the Patterson film..

Here's Heironimus during the time of the Patterson Filming [Remember, he was the man in the suit..]:


Pretty average build, right?

Now here's the 'suit':

Broad shoulders, big muscles.
You might say the ''costume'' was stuffed, but take into account the fluid motion expressed in the film.
A man in a suit can only move so much with cotton or pads on his body.

Here's a kind of recent picture of Heironimus with Phillip Morris, the creator of the suit, and Big Foot:


Heironimus originally said the suit was created by skinning a horse, but here he is with Phillip Morris's suit.
He also said it was created by skinning a horse in the documentary.

Here's another suit created by Phillip Morris:


Here's a suit, similar to the one Heironimus and Morris was holding, compared to the "suit" in the Patterson video:





Below is a comparison shot of Jim
McClarin walking through the creature’s tracks that were still visible on the sandbar at the time Jim and John Green did their film recreation. Jim
McClarin was five inches taller than Bob Heironimus, but that isn't important in this case for I am only talking about the distance each subject and their
surroundings were from the camera. There could not have been more than a two inch difference in the skeletal hip width between these two men, yet
the creature in the Patterson film had massive upper thighs that are about as big as McClarin’s waist.






Source:
www.sasquatchresearch.com...

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Logical_Psycho]




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
This is in that same web page:


It seems only fitting that Bob Heironimus is now being exposed as the fraud that he is. Did he really think that he could create a story that would be tight
enough to withstand scrutiny by those who knew the subject matter better than he obviously did? There has since surfaced some evidence that
explains how Bob Heironimus came up with the idea to say he was the guy in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. I recently had
spoken to a man named William DeHollander who had some information that seemed to explain the true motive behind Heironimus's claim. It seems
that DeHollander's wife worked at Central College University and had become friends with a woman named Denise Coffey. When William had first
heard that an unnamed Yakima man was saying that he was involved in the Patterson/Gimlin film taken at Bluff Creek in 1967, DeHollander asked
Denise if she had heard the story coming out of Yakima? (William had known that Denise was from Yakima and maybe had already heard about this
mystery man.) Denise looked at William DeHollander and rolled her eyes and said you must be talking about Bob Heironimus. Denise went on to tell
William that her husband (Neil), Bob Heironimus, and Barry Woodard use to sit around at her house and drink and tell stories. Denise had heard the
guys laughing and going on how funny it would be if Heironimus told everyone that he was the guy in a monkey suit in the Bigfoot film that Roger
Patterson shot in Northern California. They talked about how much they could sell such a story to the “Sun” newspaper for. The Sun is a type of tabloid
newspaper and the price Denise remembered them talking about getting was $50,000. DeHollander placed the time of Denise telling him about
Heironimus at nine years ago. Denise's story truly explains why Heironimus wanted to discuss talking to his lawyer before doing an interview with Greg
Long. When Long first talked to Heironimus, Bob had told him that he had nothing to do with Patterson and Gimlin's Bigfoot film. It was only after Long
opened the door about there being a Bigfoot documentary Patterson was said to have been making prior to the Bluff Creek footage that Heironimus
was willing to consider talking to Long and only after Bob consulted his attorney (Barry Woodard) who happened to be one of the men at Denise
Coffey's house when all the talk about making up a story to sell the Sun had been taking place. It seems to me that Greg Long's first hunch about Bob
Herionimus was correct. Long writes about his first contact with Heironimus on page 152, "When I finished, I concluded that I didn't believe Bob
Heironimus ..."



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
SO where are we in general. Lay out the facts in bullet points......



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
the best case for it being a real beats in my opinion is the apparent "breasts". I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I think its a detail that suggests its authentic. Who would go through the trouble to hoax breasts ?

the best case for a fake is the animal's total lack or reaction to seeing two men on horseback. It just strikes me as totally unrealistic that the creature just keeps walking like its no big deal




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Actually.

Animals that either are the top predator, or have not come into contact with humans, do not realise they are a threat. Some animal of course are naturally jumpy and will run at the sight of large movement.

The dodo just stood there whilest the sailors walked up to them and pointed guns in their faces or whatever. Theyd never come into contact with them and didnt realise they were "predatory".

The.......wooly rhino is it i think........nearly extint, they found one deep in the jungle, it had never seen a human and was actually friendly and curious about them, and walkt up to them.

So not always is a species afraid of humans or even curious or even acnowledges them.......
__________________________________________________________________________

By the way, what is the exact location of the patterson site???



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The so called suit they used for the hoax - The breasts are totally different and the shape of it is different, it obviously hangs down onto the body instead of being the solid, muscley shape on the video. The video clearly shows shoulder blades, hamstrings, large, saggy breasts etc....



and that latest video needs some indeo codec which you have to pay for so i cannot see it.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
So pretty much, the film is definately not a hoax. All the evidence points to it being real, only two things suggets the hoax side of things.

1. Countless people claiming to be the guy in the suit.

2. How the creature on film just glances at the camera (and Patterson of course) but just carries on walking.

I think we can safely say that there is no doubt that its a hoax. Though if anyone has any new evidence or even hunches that havent been discussed, please tell us!!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
So pretty much, the film is definately not a hoax.................

I think we can safely say that there is no doubt that its a hoax.


HUH? u sed its definately not, then it definately is????


And more to the point it JUST doesnt look like a suit!!!!!!!





[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88

Originally posted by Zanzibar
So pretty much, the film is definately not a hoax.................

I think we can safely say that there is no doubt that its a hoax.


HUH? u sed its definately not, then it definately is????


And more to the point it JUST doesnt look like a suit!!!!!!!





[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]


Whoops! I hadnt had my juice.


What I actually meant is that it is 100% real. No question.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
heres a link to the Patterson video, STABILIZED. Look at the movements. This looks real to me. It seems like a lot of effort and technology for the 60s. You can actually see the muscles move when "it" walks. Pretty good if you ask me....

Bigfoot Video Stablilized



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
So pretty much, the film is definately not a hoax. All the evidence points to it being real, only two things suggets the hoax side of things.


Hollywood makeup and special effects legend John Chambers is looking down on us all now chuckling that his suit is still creating such a fuss...


www.strangemag.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
the point is the stabilized footage actually looks far better than a suit. far FAR! better than a suit you could get built in the 1960's.

You would need a full bodycast, out of latex, rubber or something. And god only knows how they maintained the shape and made the muscles, tendons and shoulderblades bulge in and out. (IM ACTUALLY ASKING HOW YOU COULD, in the 1960's, get a bodycast, secondary shoulder blades and inner muscle structure etc). As for the height it has already been stated that it is taller than the people who did the filming.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
Bigfoot Video Stablilized

After viewing that stablilized video I'd have to say that its real. The movement is just so fluid and you can see the muscles move and the fat(what there is of it) jiggle when he(it?) puts his right leg down. Thats WAY to detailed for a suit. This is the real deal.

EDIT:Spelling

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Voidmaster]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voidmaster

Originally posted by spliff4020
Bigfoot Video Stablilized

After viewing that stablilized video I'd have to say that its real. The movement is just so fluid and you can see you muscles move and the fat(what there is of it) jiggle when he(it?) puts his right leg down. Thats WAY to detailed for a suit. This is the real deal.



Mind you, a suit from the 60s!!!!! We couldnt do it that good now, what about then. I had my doubts when the film was all bouncy, but if you watch it now, you can actually see muscles moving, and what I think are female breasts (does that violate the T/C? I hope not)...

Of all the crap ass posts about reptillians and NWO on here, the only one Im truely inclined to believe in is this one. It makes sense. Why couldnt there be some of these running around?

Every continent has a version of it. And if you ever driven thru America, its a huge-ass country with lots and lots of open space. No reason these things wouldnt be still hanging around....


Any rate, the video creeps me out now...I'll repost for you lamers who dont read thru the whole posts...


Stabilized Bigfoot Video



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
the point is the stabilized footage actually looks far better than a suit. far FAR! better than a suit you could get built in the 1960's.

You would need a full bodycast, out of latex, rubber or something. And god only knows how they maintained the shape and made the muscles, tendons and shoulderblades bulge in and out. (IM ACTUALLY ASKING HOW YOU COULD, in the 1960's, get a bodycast, secondary shoulder blades and inner muscle structure etc). As for the height it has already been stated that it is taller than the people who did the filming.


The knowledge did exist in the 1960's.
John Chambers reportedly once said the suit [in the Patterson film] was not his best work and the flaws are apparent to professional costumers and special effects teams.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Sigh....ok guys THE ADDRESS????? GPS COORDINATES???? im want to go back to the exact location soon.

(Maybe its fake or maybe i dont find anything (most likely) but it will still be a fun roadtrip!
) i could go with infra red, heat sensors etc, motion cameras. id need an experienced tracker too......it would be extremely fun for me actually regardless of the outcome..... i could helicopter over the site as its quite large id imagine........ that way i could get a clear view of habitat.

Is there any possibility of the involved peoples being bribed or sold out? threatened with various horrors by the government as to not reveal the truth/protect the creature as its endangered and as of its hype would be under serious threat???

also i could ask someone to do an era-accurate suit and recreate the footage. what i mean is use the same camera he used from 1960's, use only materials they had then, etc. that way there would be an ACCURATE comparison, unlike the suck-ass BBC version

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
Sigh....ok guys THE ADDRESS????? GPS COORDINATES???? im want to go back to the exact location soon.

(Maybe its fake or maybe i dont find anything (most likely) but it will still be a fun roadtrip!
) i could go with infra red, heat sensors etc, motion cameras. id need an experienced tracker too......it would be extremely fun for me actually regardless of the outcome..... i could helicopter over the site as its quite large id imagine........ that way i could get a clear view of habitat.

Is there any possibility of the involved peoples being bribed or sold out? threatened with various horrors by the government as to not reveal the truth/protect the creature as its endangered and as of its hype would be under serious threat???

also

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Shadow88]



I doubt that there would a "government cover-up" More than likely, if this thing exists, there are a small amount of them, and they are probably nomadic and nocturnal, or at least mainly nocturnal.

[edit on 5-7-2005 by spliff4020]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
quite possibly NOW theyve died out so the only possibility would be to find a huge-ass skeleton or corpse.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   




just check out these two images. the heads are different, especially the mustache.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Do any of the photo's/video show the palms/fingers of the hands.. more exactly I would be looking to see the wearing or "lighting" of the pigmentation of the hand due to heavy use. The heel of the foot looks to be somewhat square.. but.... what is the est. weight.. what do other heavy beast's heels look like?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join