It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Patterson lied about being a liar - Convincing new photo!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:08 PM
Seam Line on the leg.

First of all, I want to say that I think that the Peterson video is as real for these reasons:

1) The muscles formations are very very fluid and life like.

2) The "flexibility" of this massive creature is something that most body builders would not have. As the bigger you get, the less flexible you tend to become. If you look at the comparison picture of the known hoax attempt an the real Paterson picture, you can see that this beast has a very very large range of flexibility in its very muscular upper mass and trunk, as the beast can rotate his shoulder all the way around clearing its face (Notice the hoaxed one's shoulder doesn’t clear the face line - very human - or domesticated as in not a animal, doing animal things and getting animal exercise). The beast seams to be very limber, very athletic, very strong, and yet able to flex and move around much like.... a gorilla.

3) The size & math behind it (from what I’ve seen) looks to never be argued, people never argue that the thing is large, just that it could be a suit and man, not beast. Given the "fact" of its size being something like 7'6", an approx weight of something like 1000+ Lbs, and the fluid movements of the body mass as a whole only makes the case stronger for it IMO to be a real video or an unknown beast.

This is the only thing that I can find that makes me think that it "could" be a hoax, see below, I feel this is a very very important observation that I have yet to see mentioned here:

Look at the Stabilization Video:

A) Ok, focus your eyes on the section of video that is just before the head turning to the camera and during the head turning phase of the video.

B) Focus on the Middle/Upper Thigh area of the creature’s right leg (Closest leg to camera).

C) You will notice a circular shaded "pant line" or "shorts line" that seems to be there as he is walking that goes all the way around the leg of the creature.

D) Its looks as if they are boxer shorts under a pant suit, or a "short" section of the suit... at the very least it looks as if there is a break in the hair line there.

And that there folks is the ONLY thing that I can find that doesn’t make senses to me. For me, that is not enough to discredit the rest of the "facts" and details involved.

I still believe this is not a hoaxed video, that it’s a "Bigfoot". Either that or its a very well done Hollywood hoax.

[edit on 8/4/05 by HumptyDumpty]

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:44 PM
WoW... no one cares to comment on that?

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:24 AM
Okay I am not a very articualate writer so I will just hit my bulletted points:

#1 Patterson later in life was dying of cancer and needed money. Instead of hoaxing another bigfoot sighting he put money into an excursion to the himalayas to investigate a captured yeti. he died a few months after discovering the yeti in captivity was a hoax

#2 Gimlin to this day maintains the creature was real. Gimlin also feels he may deserve some money from the footage but has received nothing. If it was a hoax, would he not have come forward?

#3 Bob H has two different stories regarding the origin of the "costume" he claims to have worn. Originally he stated it was made from a skinned hores, then it was a Phillip Morris gorilla suit.

#4 No one has produced the costume.

#5 Phillip Morris has stated the creature looked different than his costume.

#6 Recently a woman came forward and said she was the one wearing the costume. Film analysis comparing frame rate to movement speed states the creature filmed is at least 6'2". The woman is several inches shorter.

#7 Body mass appears to large to be human.
as a quick follow up:
there are more reasons I feel this footage could be real, but am running low on time and should have prepared more to write this.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:49 AM
i know this is a little off topic but did anybody see that video of these chinese monks in snow covered mountains recording a whole family of ''bigfoots?''

i wouldnt mention this if it didnt look like an actual legit video. i saw it myself and these creatures are actually acting shy and im positive theyre not apes. the babies are even more shy than the adults. they move and interact like a seperate RARE species. it really freaked me out.

can anybody try searching it up on limewire or google or kazaa?

someone should try googling up something like ''apemen spotted in snowy mountains'' or something of that nature. its a reallly good video, everyone here should see that video its alot more convincing.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:29 AM
Pretty good read. I have just one question though. Did Patterson say it was fake before he died or was that the guy that did the famous Nessie photo?

Every video/picture of Bigfoot i've seen looks fake except the Patterson video. It was the first one, yet all the others after it look obviously fake to me. I think that's some food for thought.

I want to believe in Bigfoot, but until i see better evidence i have to write him off as a hoax.

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:08 PM
I want to believe its fake, as everything else seems to be, but when i look at the muscle movements, especially in the legs, i just can;t call it fake. Unless it's a skin tight suit, which wouldnt; make sense for the body proportions, theres just no good explination for that...

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:23 PM
The dark haired creature is a female Sasqwatch, Ever been to Willow Creek CA?

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:25 PM
I also believe in the existence of Bigfoot, but the tape is too iffy for me. If it is a fake, it is a damn good one, especially considering how long ago the tape was done. I just don’t understand how this tape is the best evidence of Bigfoot. It seems even in the vastness of the pacific north west & mid west that some proof should be available.

The tape is not enough for proof, but it does add a piece to an ever growing pile of puzzle pieces.

I can see the point that Humpty is making about the boxers, but the film, even stabilized, is grainy/unfocused/blurry enough to forgive any judgments about that. Again, if it is a fake, it is just a fabulous job. I don’t know if I believe the people who claim so much money has been dumped into trying to copy the “suit”, because the BBCs looked so pathetic, I don’t think they gave it much effort.

Recently, some footage has been taken of “Champ” which seems to be very useful in the effort to prove that it even exists. It looked good, but hopefully more can be obtained soon.

posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Shadow88
so just check this out

The arm length in the two pictures are different because the angles from which the photos were taken are different. The second picture shows the recreation bigfoot moving away from the camera whereas in the first picture it's walking parallel. Hence the longer (looking) arm on the first photo.

The same could be pointed out regarding the size of the torso.

This post doesnt really change much in the grand scheme of things but I just had to point it out.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:47 AM
I have lived in area the patterson footage was taken in - off and on - all my life. I was born and raised in Humboldt county and have seen bigfoot with my own eyes on two separate occassions.

I don't know if the patterson footage is real or not, but bigfoot is real.

There is nothing on earth that could change my mind.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:24 AM
Hmmm, if I ever get the money I would love to take a team out there and hunt bigfoot down. Get camping gear, cameras, night vision or heat, 4-5 people to help the search, some guns in case of bear/large cat/violent Bigfoot, and be out for a couple weeks.

Although isn't BigFoot suppose to be like a Gorilla that is that it is a veggie eater? Not like a chimp that is omnivorous?

Why it doesn't run away. Large animals don't, Elephants don't for we are no threat. Hell they don't even run away from lions since a lion is not a threat. Also as mentioned animals that have no contact with humans ever will usually not be afraid for they have no reason to be.

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:47 PM

Although isn't BigFoot suppose to be like a Gorilla that is that it is a veggie eater? Not like a chimp that is omnivorous?

Actually no...

I've read where people have seen ( athough I don't think it is on the BFRO it was on another forum ) them eating meat as well...

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:16 PM
IMO most of the evidence proves that this is not a hoax, however, I just have one question which seems not to have been asked :

Where are it's toes?

Also, regarding its feet, I can accept that it may have pale skin, but its feet are completely white, not just pale; wouldn't dirt have at least darkened the feet slightly? I dont know the geography of the area, what kind of earth cover is there in that part of the world? Mud?

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:58 AM
Extremely thick calloused feet would explain that.

Think about it. Probably the most calloused foot of any 'animal' except maybe an elephant.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:09 PM
I know muscles and bodybuilding and human anatomy enough that it is quite impossible to make a moving suit that bulges exact porportionally with each movement. This is one buff ape though and it seems too short because its freaking buff. If it was annorexic it would look a little normal but you have seen fat ape pics and it looks weird. Something that huge can eat a lion so why would it not be healthy?
It has some intelligence in it and walks like a human.
Faking shoulder blades and the hamstring and even those bottom back musles is too hard and almost impossible at his time...and he wasnt rich enough to do it anyways.....
Unless it was Arnold Swarzeneger(sp?) in his early actinghood?!?!?!??!
Or hulk hogan was bored and decided to go put hair on and thats really him?

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Wisdumb]

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Although isn't BigFoot suppose to be like a Gorilla that is that it is a veggie eater? Not like a chimp that is omnivorous?

Actually no...

I've read where people have seen ( athough I don't think it is on the BFRO it was on another forum ) them eating meat as well...

This thread has got to be my fav ever! Great points being made and hardly any psycho slagging, mothers not being mentioned is always good as well!

Back to the Bigfoot stuff, theres an account on BFRO of one eating some KFC that had been left out, so they do eat meat. If its true that is.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:32 PM
Calousing may cause the feet to whiten, but I do not think that it would cause the natural contours of the foot to completely disappear. It still seems a bit too white for me. Also, the whitening would only be at the bits where the foot makes heaviest contact with the ground, on its foot here, there is white uniformity throughout the sole. The white must surely fade into the black/dark brown of the rest of its body, there is no fading here, only a plain white sole.

Calousing does also not explain its lack of toes.

The image above gives one some kind of idea as to what the contours of a primate's feet look like. Even if in this case the sasquatch's feet are more human like, one would surely be able to make out the arch in the center of the foot.

Just to give you another idea. Despite the images being illustrations, it puts the sasquatch foot in perspective.... doesn't look very real from here.
Notice the lack of toes on the sasquatch.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:03 PM
Heres a great website for images on primates . I looked through about a hundred images and have come to the conclusion that calousing on a dark skinned primate, ie black, would cause calousing on such an animal to further be darkened. A good example are chimpanzees.
The sasquatch had a black hue and would therefore have dark calouses. Judging from those images, it is unlikely that an authentic sasquatch, like the one in Patterson's video, could have such white feet. Notice also the tose and clearly visible contours in all the following links.

Here is a list of some of the more relevant images on that site:

Notice the not-very-pale hand at the bottom left of the image. (comments apply to the images above them)

Notice both hands and feel are fairly pale, although not white.

Hands and feet are black.

Hands are dark.

Notice dark at the bottom of its feet

Notice the dark hand on this old Urang-Utan, this suggest that callousing would not cause whitening on a dark-skinned primate, but a further darkening.

Notice the dark hands and feet.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:16 PM
Surprisingly there is a bigfoot museum near where i live on the central coast of california. a few weeks back i took my sons in thier and asked about the foot and why it looked like a slipper. the curators answer was that the fil was overexposed. looking at the trees near the ground in that pic i can see how that could be possible.

but thats just me

i also want to recommend that any interested in a rational perspective on bigfoot should read grover krantz books. he takes a very calm look at it. even though he is totally convinced that sasquatch is a real living primate.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Lord Vilmur]

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 04:08 PM
I was just thinking randomly.....

We're currently the most advanced (known) species on the planet. And we have evolved to walk on two legs, because among many possible reasons, we use our hands to use tools and manipulate our environments using more than just our teeth or bodies.

The next down are lower primates, who while still walk mainly on all fours, use tools with their hands. you all heard about the gorrilla who kept his balance in a river using a makeshift "hiking stick"

It generally seems to me that land animals (and btw this a completely general statement) grow more, once they learn how to use external devices, spears, flints etc. Dolphins it turns out, even grab conch shells in there mouths to scrape away the sea floor sediment, to get to foods just underneath. how cool!?

Basically what im trying to say is there seems to be a pattern. Bigfoot walked on two feet, so has to be able to use his hands, plus he looked rather intelligent as he turned around and looked at the men.

So IF bigoot was as intelligent as say....a neanderthal, he would have the intelligence to know when and how to hide, or even realise we are a thread or "predator". I would imagine he is PRETTY good at hiding from us, intentionally. Afterall, its a BIG forest, lots of places to hide if hes smart enough.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in