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-Gimlin Film

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
The film as never been debunked on an evidential scale. There has been lots of claims of people being 'the person in the suit', with the most probable being Bob Hieronomous(sp).

Based on the assumption that Robert Gimlin, Pattersons companion that day, is and has been telling the truth that he was not part of hoax nor did he know of a hoax being implemented. He would not have any knowledge of another person being in the bush with them that day, who in turn would be waiting to make himself visible for the camera.

It would seem highly unlikely that someone would be able to follow or meet up with them at a predetermined location with out being seen or heard. Especially if they had to wear an assumable heavy costume in the California sun for any length of time.

My questions are this, as I could not find any mention on the internet,

How far out in the bush were they when they made the discovery? i.e. 2 hours, 3 hours, a days ride on horseback, etc.

Were there accessible roads or paths which could be easily maneuvered for a man in a vehicle or on horseback carrying such a costume to that location?

As I mentioned, I did a basic search on the internet, but to no avail. Does anyone have any insight on my above questions.

My feelings are if Patterson-Gimlin were far back in the woods, where accessibility was an issue, it could be construed as highly unlikely that someone could meet them there or follow them there with not being noticed and have it timed perfectly to allow for the footage that was shot.



Wig

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Sorry not to add anything to your thread, but what we need is a satellite location image of the location. So if anyone knows where it was can they please help.

I have to say though that this footage has never impressed me, I've always thought it looks like a man in a suit.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
It is definitely not a man in a suit. Apparently you have not seen the multitude of work done with that footage. The location has been narrowed down and if you do a search here, you will find the information you're looking for from past threads. You could probably page back and find it easily.


Wig

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
It is definitely not a man in a suit. Apparently you have not seen the multitude of work done with that footage. The location has been narrowed down and if you do a search here, you will find the information you're looking for from past threads. You could probably page back and find it easily.


I have seen "the work done" and I am in the camp of people who think it is a man in a suit. Just because people on ATS make a thread saying one thing does not make it true.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
A satelite image may help, but things may have changed considerably since the late 60's.

From reading through the past posts, I could not find any reference to how far away from civilization or how long of a trip it was to the location of the filming. Thus the question I asked.

Its possible I could have missed it with the amount of threads on the subject, if anyone knows of the the thread Jbondo speaks of, please provide a link.

As far as it being a man in a suit, anything is possible, but not everything is likely...

Its not likely... that a man carrying a suit for however long of a journey, whether it be by horseback or automobile, can meet up at the exact moment the duo show up in that area, hastily put on the suit, and then scamper along in front of them and evade them long enough to get back to his means of transportation and leave the scene without being noticed or heard.

Now, you may say he was waiting at the area the whole time and planned it with Patterson when to pop out, but he would have to spend 'some amount of time' wearing the suit, which would be considerably uncomfortable to wear for any length of time.

They would not have been able to comunicate very well, if at all, so to have everything in place at the exact time they showed up would constitute a fair amount of planning as well as time consideration on Pattersons behalf to know just how long it would take him and his sidekick to get to that location, without Gimlin suspecting anything.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
How far out in the bush were they when they made the discovery? i.e. 2 hours, 3 hours, a days ride on horseback, etc.

One of the arguments in favor of its authenticity is that the location is very far back up in the woods and best accessible by horseback.

Good overview of the film here:
Patterson-Gimilin Film Background


Wig

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Someone must be able to put up a sat image of Bluff Creek WA.

I just read someone saying there are towo creatures in the patterson footage, in the treeline stage left and stage right is how I read what they said, and they said this was the same creature so prooves the tape was edited. Not me, saying this, so don't have a go at me, I haven't even got the clip to look at.

[edit on 21/3/2006 by Wig]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I know of at least one post from a guy that knows the area very well and has been there. I am almost sure the lat and long were given in the same thread. Unfortunately I just cant remember which thread it was. Very sorry! If I get the chance, I'll try and locate it for you Grail. I could be wrong but hopefully my memory is not in error.

Wig, I'm JGMO as everyone else. But I'm interested to know what gives away "the man in the suit". Please, by all means, enlighten me!



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Stabilized Patterson-Gimlin Film

Here's a link to a stabilization of the film. Most people tend to see it as proof that it's a guy in a suit. But the arms are so long, and the muscles in the legs are so huge, it would be the weirdest suit ever made, and really a bit pointless when a simple, modified gorilla suit would have done just as good.

So the verdict is still out on the film. As for the other things that make Bigfoot essentially impossible, those things are still in play.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If you've seen the work on the video, you will see that the "Bigfoot" has individual muscles that move while he is walking, such as his calf and shoulder blades (from what I recall). This alone makes it basically impossible to be a suit. For starters, it would have to have been an extremely advanced suit for the time (even advanced in today's standards). It would have cost a ton of money, and involved work by some very talented people and companies. Wouldn't someone involved in the making of this great suit have come forward by now? Wouldn't there be a paper trail for building and purchasing such an expensive and technologically advanced Bigfoot suit?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as support for the video's authenticity. It's just the biggest thing that sticks out in my mind when it comes to the Patterson video, so I thought I'd throw that out there. I just think that if this was a hoax then there would have been a lot more people involved, especially in the special effects department. And after the man who claims he wore the suit came forward, you would think that someone involved in making the suit would back up his claims. Instead, this guy is the only person who claims to have directly been involved in the hoax. And to be honest I think he was just trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and inject himself in such a historic event. It's a real shame if he's lying, which I think he is, because it is a major injustice to the Bigfoot-believers community!!!

The Patterson video was real, and it was a female Bigfoot! And if you look closely, you can see she has some really big (for lack of a better, less-offensive term) "knockers"!!! Now of all the details to include on a Bigfoot suit, I would think that the last thing someone would put on it is huge breasts! To me, as wacky as it sounds, the breasts are another example of why this was an authentic Bigfoot video, IMO.


Wig

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Jbondo, dunno what JGMO is I imagine "Just going on my opinion" you are welcome to believe what you want, it just looks like a man in a suit, I can't give you any more it's JMO.

Rasputin, I don't see any muscles moving and the gif provided above is excellent (thanks Enkidu), don't see any muscles, yeah I see the tits, so the suit had tits, people see what they want to see, all I see is "man in suit"

I've seen people claiming the way she walks using CGI skeleton image showing the hips swinging...on the video I don't see anything but a normal humans walk.

Seen stuff about the way she turns her head and upper torso. I see her turn her head first then torso, and not a movement unusual for a human to have done in a suit.

[edit on 21/3/2006 by Wig]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
JGMO= Just giving my opinion

Wig, I don't know what to tell you. If you see a man in a suit after all that has been presented then you will never change your mind. I have little doubt that it is real.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Last time I saw the stablized version I distinctly remember seeing muscles move under the skin and seeing a thin layer of fat bounce when she puts her right leg down one time.
It would have been impossible to costruct a suit that detailed back then, and even today BBC spent quite a bit of money on a recreation that didn't look anything like the original suit.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wig
Rasputin, I don't see any muscles moving and the gif provided above is excellent (thanks Enkidu), don't see any muscles, yeah I see the tits, so the suit had tits, people see what they want to see, all I see is "man in suit"



Here's some muscle movement for ya...

Shoulder blade that I slowed down...



And a hamstring...



As I think it's real, don't see Patterson making the suit on his budget, he wasn't a rich man...

Besides If I remember right the special effects crew of Walt Disney reviewed the film some time after, and said that they couldn't recreate it...




[edit on 21-3-2006 by Jedi_Master]


Wig

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Sorry guys your "muscle movements" don't impress me. I'm in my camp and I'm not leaving.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Hmmm...

Too bad for you
...



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   


Sorry guys your "muscle movements" don't impress me


Me either, could just be an oversized suit where the "skin" is moving around creating the appearance of muscle movement.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum

Me either, could just be an oversized suit where the "skin" is moving around creating the appearance of muscle movement.


Sorry but I've seen suits from that era and their not the same, even an "over sized suit" couldn't duplicate it...

Do you actually see the same movement from Bob Heronimus' suit here ( this is supposed to be an exact replica )...



Also did you know that good ole Bobby claimed that at first the suit was from Horse hide, then later claimed that it was a suit from Phillip Morris ?




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
In relation to the Phillip Morris suit, I read that when Bobby H went with that story, he described the opposite of what the creator of the suit claimed.

Bobby H:

two pc suit, top half was worn like a shirt and the bottom half worn like pants.

gloves and boots/feet part of the suit

Phillip Morris:

One pc suit, hands and feet were not attached to the suit

Had a zipper located on the back.

If it was a small inconsistency, then his credibility may waiver on the plus side. But to claim the total opposite spells shenanigans in my mind.





Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing ape suits that are in many respects quite different; Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume.



en.wikipedia.org...

edit to add link



[edit on 22-3-2006 by Grailkeeper]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Grailkeeper]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Those muscle movements are quite specific and accurate for the way they should look. Wearing a suit, you may get luckey and the suit will flex an accurate portrail once but to have so many muscles expanding and contracting accurately along with shoulder blade movement? Impossible feat in my estimation!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join