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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 07:37 PM
Some exellent points being brought up here.

However, i think that to compare a land animal to a tree dweller is an unfair comparison in this case. Gorillas, Chimps and Orang's are all tree dwellers to some extent (even if they don't dwell there, they are definately comfortable in them and can move around efficiently). I think its safe to assume that considering the redwood trees of its habitation zone and the sheer size and weight of her, that bigfoot is not a tree dweller in any sense of the word. (therefore hand and feet circumstances are vastly different)

Also, i think it may be a bad idea to assume that their skin is black like a chimp's. Look at the nose of bigfoot in that same picture. Her nose is white. Even though we cannot clearly see the rest of her facial coloring, i think its safer to assume that it is not entirely black (or possibly even partially black).

Try comparing with a man's caloused feet (or even a bear - which lives in similar circumstances and carries alot of weight around) and i think we get closer to the true picture. Black bears do not have black skin and even though they are not primates, i think their circumstancial similarities are what should be looked at here.

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 03:56 AM
The white feet may have been the mud that Bigfoot was walking on, its the same rough colour and everything, maybe it was muddy and it stuck to her feet? Its a bit far-fetched but if I do say so myself, it seems logical.

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 04:21 PM
Ok i found this pic, now at first glance it seems its showing the similarities between patterson and bigfoot,


Look closer, starting from the feet, and you will notice everything about patterson, the joint heights, shoulder heights, elbow heights, head, neck etc, is different. How bout that then?

but also bigfoot in a diner.

Although this does give my ancestor of neanderthal theory.

Could be a orangutan, but looks like it has a rabbit in its mouth,

[edit on 9-10-2005 by Shadow88]

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:39 AM
That last pic is a tree stump.

A funny lookinjg tree stump, but a tree stump nontheless.

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Master Wu
That last pic is a tree stump.

A funny lookinjg tree stump, but a tree stump nontheless.

Tree stump? Got anything to back that up? A link maybe?

That pic showing Patterson and BF is crap, Patterson never said he was in the suit, and its all out of scale anyway.

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 02:48 PM
I also feel that the comparrison between Patterson and Bigfoot is a fairly poor piece of evidence. It has never been claimed that Patterson was in the suit; he was riding the horse taking the video, remember!
I think that that 'thing' in the third picture is most likely a tree stump. If it is not, then what is it doing on all fours? If it is on all fours then it is not a Sasquatch or Bigfoot and is hence irrelevant to this debate. However, if it is not a tree stump, then it sure does look close to some evil-looking carnivorous Urang-Utan!

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 03:12 PM
the patterson film is confounding.

the muscles, the breasts, the stride, the coat, all suggest a real creature.

What always confuses me is the reaction this creature has to a man on horseback.

No reaction.

You can argue she had no reason to fear a man or a horse if she had never seen one, but the flipside to that is the only logical explanation of how these animals have avoided discovery is they are shy, secretive creatures, which would make me believe she would flee at the sight of a man on a horse....

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by The_Modulus
If it is on all fours then it is not a Sasquatch or Bigfoot and is hence irrelevant to this debate.

Not true my fair man! Cant remember if this has been brought up before, but right at the end it appears as if Bigfoot slumps over on all fours and 'gallops' off. Can anyone back me up on this>

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 05:28 PM
Personaly something feels wrong about that comparison.

Sure the knee would be a good indicator (bigfoot should have a longer and stronger femur - upper leg) BUT the height is what gets me.

In the comparison, they are roughly the same height. The bigfoot(s) that i have seen with my own eyes were far larger than a man, id estimate roughly 8 foot tall, i couldnt even begin to estimate its weight - something close to a moose or a grizzly bear would be my bet.

Interesting points are brought forth with a "look at them when they are the same height" comparison (like the back length, forearm length, knee joints etc) but same heighth is not a good comparison - was pattersons bigfoot only 6 feet tall? Personnaly, id be more impressed if in the comparison the man only comes up to the bigfoots chest or sternum... thats closer to the reality IMO.

Also, i doubt that pattersons bigfoot was a juvenile (that could explain it being only 6 foot tall) seeing how well endowed those mammaries are. Those to me indicate 'motherhood' and 'maturity'. From my own experiences i'd say pattersons bigfoot should be between 7 and 8 feet tall (sure its only a foot or two different - but it would make things alot clearer if the comparisons showed that).

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 01:29 PM
Forget the comparison, its amateur and out of proportion.

BUT! i dont understand why patterson would say he was filmin, then demonstrate himself walking in the suit. Did he contradict himself???

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:00 PM
Personally, i feel that some time during Patterson's "twilight years" he was approached by some people who said something like 'we can provide alot of money for your family after you are gone, if only you will say it was all a hoax" or something along those lines.

I believe Patterson took them up on it (its a rural area and even a moderate amount of cash can go a long way in those parts) BUT had decided to throw in a few things to keep the 'searchers and conspiracy nuts' guessing and searching - like comparing his body to bigfoots. In fact, he didnt even have to try and show us that "part two" was all a fake, because it can't be duplicated.

First of all, if the footage IS real then it CAN'T be faked. All endeavors to do so would fail. Some may come close but all would be doomed to failure. This is a type of phenomena that cannot be duplicated, only simulated. As we all know, a simulation may fool some people for a short while but it will never actually duplicate the phenomena. This next statement proves my point:

I challenge ANYONE to duplicate The Patterson Footage. Successful contenders will get 1 Billion dollars.

Then: Look at all the submissions. All will simulate, but not one will duplicate the footage. Even the footage itself cannot be duplicated, let alone actual footage of a bigfoot.

If Pattersons footage is real (and yes, i believe it may be) then it cannot be faked (or duplicated). Any attempt to do so would immediately be nitpicked and proven fake. I have yet to see a man in a monkey suit who can show his muscle movements through the suit (let alone massive swinging mammaries - thats a nice touch that no faker in the 60's would attempt due to its potential complications IMO).

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 07:44 PM
The only problem I have with Bigfoot is archeological. Why haven't ANY verifiable remains been found? Granted, the Pacific Northwest is huge, but man has been tromping around in pretty significant numbers through much of it. Never have we found any fossils of Bigfoot.

I have to admit, I am pitching my preference for the 'hobbit' fossils!

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:17 AM
In regards to it walking on all fours, I dont see how this is possible; it's arms are far too short in comparison to its legs. Primates that walk on fours have arms to their knees. This big momma doesn't. But hey, you never know, Im no anatomologist... or whatever, and I havn't taken a close enough look at the end of the video.

I have also been thinking of a way to make such a costume which would show muscle movements: One could cover somebody completely with black body paint, then make a tight fitting body-suit from a thin nylon material (the stuff stockings are made of) which would have black hairs individually inserted into the fabric.

It would be a time consuming and very tedious job, but I think a very patient and determined person could make such a costume.

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:22 AM
...or instead of body paint, an African (I honestly don't know what the going politically-correct term is at the moment) person could take on the costume.

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 01:40 PM
Primates arms tend to be as long as their legs, and in relation to us they basically have four arms. Our arms have become shorter after we stopped walking on them, and our rear arms (feet) changed shape as their use altered.

Depending on its evolutionary lifestyle (what its been doing for the last 100,000 years) will have had an affect on its limb length, body shape/size etc. I would imagine it uses its arms to move large logs etc.

Finally finding remains.......have you seen the size of the forest? Finding a 7 foot long rotted skeletal remains in a dense canadian forest is way beyond like finding a needle in a haystack. LOL......pretty much like finding a needle in a canadian forest.
Remains, like any remains would blend in.

It is likely that if this species is real, it is dying out. The story of bigfoot has been around for generations, but we only saw one (only one that we cannot disprove). I say if we did want to find a bigfoot - while it might be too late already - we would have to act now, and with the most, and best technology.

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:06 PM
Shadow88; your analogy of our legs being our back arms reminds me of what toes are called in Setswana, a South African language. They call them (directly translated of course) foot-fingers, which is quite quaint.

In any case, I have had another idea, this one of how we could actually find the sasquatch! We first need to make my costume as described above, then we need to get a suitably built MALE (I think you know where I'm going with this one) and have him walk around in the woods for a couple days. The sasquatch may just... take a fancy and decide to come out to play

You never know, it might work; get some Ode de Gorilla... candles... a home cooked meal...

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:19 PM
Bear bones have never been found. Wolverine bones have never been found. Giant human-type bones HAVE been found, but are rare and considered anomalies (gigantopithicus comes to mind as well) - but even those were found in arizona, nevada, utah and idaho - none have been found in washington/oregon/california. Bones in this neck of the woods are just so rare that its not a very conclusive arguement for or against. Airplanes have even crashed around here that have still not been found.

The suit idea i believe can be done in the modern age, but in the 1960's?

IMO if Patterson used a suit, its still the best bigfoot suit ever made, and it was made before i was ever born (1970) - thats 35+ years ago at least.. Again, those mammaries make that suit (if its a suit) exponentially more difficult to make (let alone actually use).

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM
LOL just for kicks, spray the suit with pheromones (lurve particles animals release to attract a mate) and along comes daddy bigfoot. HEHEHE just make sure its someone you dont like in the suit! ouchies!

ok i will stop being silly, yep i suppose thats an option....

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:33 PM
Morris claimed that he recognized the Patterson subject because of the feet...he maintained that these were feet from one of his gorilla costumes...has anyone ever seen the feet you get with a gorilla costume?? Do they look anything like the huge flat feet seen on the Patterson subject??

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:52 PM

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in