Patterson lied about being a liar - Convincing new photo!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
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]


www.free-codecs.com...




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
thanks but doesnt matter now....silly me forgot my computer has divx not ma laptop.....so played it on ma computer!
neway back to the topic at hand......



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Here are a few reasons that the Patterson footage COULD be fake:

1. I would think Bigfoot to be more of a nocturnal creature, and would only walk away if it were in the security of night-time, not daylight. If you approach primates don't they run, like orangutans and apes, etc? Photographers can barely get decent footage of wild apes before they run away anyway, now imagine 2 men clunking along on horseback, and the bigfoot just simply walks away? Doubtful.

2. There is hair covering everything, even the breasts and butt of the creature, don't "normal" have hairless butts/breasts? Unsure.

3. Arms seem too short proportionally, and it tends to walk very human-like.

Here are the reasons that I DO believe it to be real, and I BEG someone to refute me and argue against my facts, please.

1. Impossible to have that detailed a costume in 1967, can't even be duplicated nowadays. The body structure, muscular movement, rippling fat, etc.

2. Upper thighs and torso are huge, which would make sense.

3. The family member that claimed it was a hoax was merely attempting a money-making scam. And the guy claiming to be in the suit has no proof at all, he's just tall. Just like the dozens of other guys that claimed to be "the guy in the suit."

4. If you look hard enough at any picture or film you can find flaws. So much scrutinizing has happened to this film already, maybe moreso than any film in history. Yet nothing groundbreaking has debunked it, so that fact alone almost proves it to be real.

5. This is a new animal we're talking about, so comparing is exclusively to known things (ie: humans and monkeys isn't necessarily fair). It may have some similar, yet some different traits.

6. Finally, for everyone that says "it walks like a human so it's obviously a guy in a suit," I offer you this. For an unrecorded species of hominid, and possible missing link, isn't this exactly what you'd be looking for anyway?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
The smaller species of ape run away, true. But do gorillas? Not really, they hold their ground. They know they are bigger than us and use that as a defence, what they dont know is that we have guns. But they still dont run away- because their huge.

And the all over hairy thing is interesting, but I do think some species of ape have all over hairyness. Or it could just be a trait of Bigfoot.

Some good points there!!



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It all matters on the hair folicles, like humans.
Some gorillas have hair all over.
Some might have some fuzz on their chest and their back and some have no hair on their chest and belly and hair on their backside, or no hair on the backside and hair on the chest.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical_Psycho
It all matters on the hair folicles, like humans.
Some gorillas have hair all over.
Some might have some fuzz on their chest and their back and some have no hair on their chest and belly and hair on their backside, or no hair on the backside and hair on the chest.


So does that mean that the hair placement can be anywhere?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar

Originally posted by Logical_Psycho
It all matters on the hair folicles, like humans.
Some gorillas have hair all over.
Some might have some fuzz on their chest and their back and some have no hair on their chest and belly and hair on their backside, or no hair on the backside and hair on the chest.


So does that mean that the hair placement can be anywhere?

There has to be hair follicles.
Not every part of the body has hair follicles.
Genes determine whether certain hair follicles are expressed or not, and whether the hair in a certain area is long, short, thin, thick, curly, or straight.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logical_Psycho

Originally posted by Zanzibar

Originally posted by Logical_Psycho
It all matters on the hair folicles, like humans.
Some gorillas have hair all over.
Some might have some fuzz on their chest and their back and some have no hair on their chest and belly and hair on their backside, or no hair on the backside and hair on the chest.


So does that mean that the hair placement can be anywhere?

There has to be hair follicles.
Not every part of the body has hair follicles.
Genes determine whether certain hair follicles are expressed or not, and whether the hair in a certain area is long, short, thin, thick, curly, or straight.


Oh, ok, I get it now. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Excellent points all!

I definitly believe a primate (like?) species is roaming around the world, inteligent enough to know to avoid us.

I've seen a documentry on Bigfoot on NGC, even though they were skeptics, still alot of evidence pointed to it being real, they were lame enough to stick in the people who claim it was a hoax...but in the end they said there was no proof to the guy being the one in the suit.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Excellent points all!

I definitly believe a primate (like?) species is roaming around the world, inteligent enough to know to avoid us.

I've seen a documentry on Bigfoot on NGC, even though they were skeptics, still alot of evidence pointed to it being real, they were lame enough to stick in the people who claim it was a hoax...but in the end they said there was no proof to the guy being the one in the suit.


I saw that show. Did you see the part where the women talked to a whole clan of bigfoots.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
My thoughts on some of the points in this thread:
1)




Just for the record, this is in no way supposed to be a photo of bigfoot. It was a draw over by Patterson himself of the one frame from his footage, to show more clearly what he saw the face look like. So obviously when people say "OMG THATS FAKE!!1!"; it's because well; it's supposed to be. It's just a drawing overlapping a blurry photo, so the rest of us can see at least partially what he saw.

2)
As for the "why would it not run away scared?" argument. Have any of you spent any time in the woods? I have. And I've encountered a few wild animals.

I've faced down a moose in the wild. That's one scary animal to face down. They are not at all afraid of humans; and generally speaking if you fire a warning shot "at" them (warning shot meaning you discharge your fire arm, so that the noise will hopefully scare them away) they will charge you. Whenever I come across a moose, I pull my gun (.357 magnum, with about the most "poweful" rounds you can buy for it); try to keep it centered on the moose' chest area, and slowly back away, looking for high ground I can climb up onto, such as tall boulders, very sturdy trees (they will headbutt tree's with enough force to knock small ones down, and with enough force to just knock you out), etc.

Deer and Elk. Deer are small, and mostly speaking get away from you as quick as possible. Elk are huge (compared to deer, not moose though) and they also generally will just try and get away from you. A cow with a calf, or a bull in rutt however, is a completely different story. And it's about the same situation as a moose.

Mountain Lion. Unless it wants you to know it's there, the only reason you'll know it's there is the hair on the back of your neck stands up, and every instinct in your body says "GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE NOW!!!" I've only seen eith my eyes, one in the wild. Seen traces, and pretty much knew others were there. They are thus far the scariest thing I've encountered in the wild. Especially since they come out of nowhere without a sound, and disapear about five seconds later. Yet you can feel their eyes on you sometimes, and that is a horrible feeling.

Bears, grizzly and black. Both are around my frequent hiking areas. Thus far I've been extremely lucky and never faced one down. Blacks are supposed to be more dangerous, as they tend to have a higher kill % of their attacks. It's said that loud noises can often deter black bears though. They however also dont' run from the very sight of humans, and in fact around here are very much used to humans. And tend to love going through their trash at night. Grizzlies, there are many very very true stories, about them being shot, and hit, with high powered hunting rifles, and still coming straight at you. If you're telling me a .30-.06 round to the head, only makes it angrier, that the very sight of a human is going to drive it off; I'll ask you what kind of drugs you're on, and where I can score some.

Now these aren't personal experiances, but from what I've read, the larger primates; for a very long time had absolutely no fear towards humans. Only in the years with the mass poachings where they've learned "humans = death" have they started to evade us. And even then some don't. And monkeys in some countries are pests to humans. Have no fear whatsoever, and pretty much take over towns, going through trash and coming in through windows stealing food out of peoples homes etc.

Over all, the point is, not everything is afraid of people. And not everything has a need to fear people.

3) The suit argument. If it's a suit. Recreate it exactly. It can't be that hard for a proffessional special effects artist, or hell even a tailor with the right materials, to exactly recreate that suit, that was made in '67, with a much lower understanding of musculatuar than today, and much worse tools to use. Until one is created that behaves exactly as the footage shows. I will not believe that the Patterson footage is hoaxed.


That's about all I have to say for right now.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Ive closley examined the video and have even adjusted hues to give it odd colors. At 1 point I swear I see bigfoots butt muscles flex. If you look very carefull in the stabilzed video you can see it. Suits like this can be made now a days. But back then id say time travel were more possible then pulling of something this big!



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I remember seeing the Patterson clip in the late 70's. There was a part when they first saw it, they were still on horseback. The horses were getting spooked, so they had to get down and move in to get the images that we now scrutinize. We pick at the main event but has anyone wondered what set the horses off in the first place?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
There is some extremely rare extra footage of Patterson running towards the site after spying it through some bushes, he runs parrallel to Patty and then starts filming for proper. Its incredibly hard to get hold of and I have only seen it once. If I saw the smae doccy that Kidfinger did, then he/she may have seen it as well.

Who is supposed to have taken this footage? His partner was holding a 30.06 on the creature during the encounter. They, were the only ones there.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
no the extended footage is the same footage, just the normal footage is just shortened. the extended has them running toward the area aswell



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
At first i was skeptical about this film...but now that everyone has pointed out the reasons it could be real i think my opinion has changed...the muscle movent does seem very real as does most of the film, and the arms do seem much to long to be human...at least if this is real we know that bigfoot isnt hostile
...i feel much safer in the forest now

BTW does anyone know what forest this is...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
perhaps what was a case of simply being in the right place at the right time, turned into years and years of scepticism, hatemail, rigorous interviews and questioning. Perhaps they just got so sick and tired of it, theu called it a hoax to get some peace finallu.

it reminds me of a thing i saw just yesterday, a study finds that many people, when questioned again and again and again will actually admit to something, that they did NOT do, just to stop interrogation, or actually believe they DID do it, due to false memory syndrome. just a thought.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
If it is a fake, why go to all the trouble making such a detailed and expensive suit. He could of got away with a gorilla suit knowing that a moving camera shot would mask most details.

I mean how many other films of BF were out in the 60s? Why raise the bar that high when there was no need to.

Also Patterson did not milk it. I'm sure he was offered a lot of money for additional footage and filming BFII & BFIII might have made him a wealthy man and yet this is his only film. That does'nt make sense if it was a hoax.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Bah! we will never know! FINAL. F I N A L. final.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I am noticing the undercutting of the calf in the still frame someone else posted.
Now if I am a layman creating a suit, i would make a rather baggy suit covered in hair. There is almost no way I would have the skill and the forethought to undercut the calf, and add breasts, triceps ect. I cannot even think of a good way to undercut the calf without some sort of stiff reinforcement, which would make the leg skin move differently than the rest of the leg. It is much easier to say it was a hoax, and this way people just leave you the hell alone.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join