Breaking: Romanian Bigfoot Photos

Don't know what to make of these. Looks almost like an action figure doll-cartoonish like features. A suit? Real deal? Thoughts?

www.cryptomundo.com...

[edit on 12-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Hi there DD,

Well, I think I'm gonna have to go with the 'suit' option on this one.

I agree the face in particular does look very cartoonish ... I hope they didn't get it muddy before taking it back to the fancy-dress store (they would lose their deposit).

Seriously though, can you imagine what an anti-climax it would be if this were the genuine thing.

Woody

[edit on 12-2-2008 by woodwytch]

I saw these. It never really states the source of the photos. Maybe I missed it. This costume is worse than the Patterson costume. Still I am sure someone will think they are real.

reply to post by testrat


Well, I am one of the people who believes the Patterson footage to be legit.

This one though, outside of the strange facial features, has almost a 'gorilla-costume-like' chest and ab-plate, which is what has me skeptical. I don't think, based on most eye-witness accounts, that sasquatch has a hairless chest and ab section.

Nice six pack. I wonder how many sit ups he does..... Really one should not try to fake with a chest mold pattern that is off the shelf.

Looks to be about 195 pounds and 5' 11". Naw to skinny to be stinkfoot. That face with the unibrow, beard and the head hair looks authentic, maybe its elvis reincarnated.

I give it thumbs down!

Originally posted by testrat
This costume is worse than the Patterson costume.

Comparing these rubber-suit photos to the Patterson tape is a bit of an injustice, I reckon.

Considering that the Patterson "costume" was about 30 years ahead of its time and didn't have MADE IN TAIWAN stenciled across its perfect abdominal muscles.

This is a joke but I'd love to hear all of the research that proves the "patterson costume".

Come on testrat, lets hear it.

Not only has the Patterson footage stood the test of time but it has stood up against more and more advanced technological scrutiny every year and proven to be more authentic with each failed attempt to debunk it.

80% it's real and I can give loads of support for that statement.

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by testrat
This costume is worse than the Patterson costume.

Considering that the Patterson "costume" was about 30 years ahead of its time and didn't have MADE IN TAIWAN stenciled across its perfect abdominal muscles.

Well it was ahead of its time. It probably did have MORRIS COSTUMES stenciled somewhere. Philip Morris was the man who made the suit, he made a lot of gorrilla suits, thats why it looked good.

Look at the toes sticking out of the hairy foot!!! What a laugh! That is a hoax for sure. The whole thing is a weak attempt to get some attention. End of story. One good loook tells the tale.

Originally posted by testrat
Philip Morris was the man who made the suit, he made a lot of gorrilla suits...

Which is why it's so weird that he has never been able to reproduce the suit.

I don't really believe Morris for a minute. Look at his theory for how Patterson updated his monkey suit to get it to look so good:

Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit.

Source

I'm sure he meant to say "special sticks that would allow Patterson to move his fingers."

The film may be a hoax, but any assertion to that effect is based on a gut feeling, not on any available facts.

Originally posted by WorldShadow
That face with the unibrow, beard and the head hair looks authentic, maybe its elvis reincarnated. I give it thumbs down!

I think it may be Krankor from "Prince of Space" without his space suit on:

reply to post by testrat


And how did they reproduce the leg muscles? Sticks? lol. Really if anyones a fraud its Morris.

reply to post by Essedarius



Not only that, but when he tried to reproduce the 'gait' he was found incapable of doing it like the object in the film. He tried to blame his failure on 'health problems'. He was nothing more than a hoaxer seeking attention.

Well, by accident I think I derailed this thread. I never meant this to be a Patterson video dicussion. I think we can all agree that the Romanian bigfoot photos are fake.

I believe the evidence for the Patterson is just overwhelming. A guy reads a bigfoot article, decides to rent a video camera, and two day later has footage of a mythical beast.

A lot more smarter men/women with better equipment have tried to capture what he did, but without success. Maybe Patterson ran into a really dumb bigfoot, that instead of using its survival instincts to hide before detection, skipped through the forest for him.

There are many threads on ATS about debunking the Patterson film. This discussion might be better in one of them.

Like these:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and my favorite
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by testrat
Well, by accident I think I derailed this thread. I never meant this to be a Patterson video dicussion. I think we can all agree that the Romanian bigfoot photos are fake.

I believe the evidence for the Patterson is just overwhelming. A guy reads a bigfoot article, decides to rent a video camera, and two day later has footage of a mythical beast.

A lot more smarter men/women with better equipment have tried to capture what he did, but without success. Maybe Patterson ran into a really dumb bigfoot, that instead of using its survival instincts to hide before detection, skipped through the forest for him.

There are many threads on ATS about debunking the Patterson film. This discussion might be better in one of them.

Like these:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and my favorite
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Bigfoot must have been drinking too much water with a heavy flouride content or it was a child of incest all deformed .. Pres Bush makes love to monkey woman, love child captured on film.

That chest sure looks fake to me, almost identical to a costume I saw last Halloween in fact



This image here the creatures head looks a lot like a mask.

Originally posted by testrat
I think we can all agree that the Romanian bigfoot photos are fake.

So there should be no reason not to give us all your evidence to support your position on the Patterson footage.

There are many threads on ATS about debunking the Patterson film. This discussion might be better in one of them.

This thread is fresh and as you said, "we can all agree on the OP subject". You brought it up quite matter of factly.

I want to hear about your many hours in the forest and about how an animal should move or react to humans. I want to hear your reasoning as to why BF should run screaming into the woods at the sight of man. I want to see your proof of Philip Morris' magic costume. Actually the costume itself with the morris label inside would be great now that you mention it!

Not only has this film disappointed scientists for 40 years but it usually adds insult to injury as they often find new points of authenticity. Most recently in the monsterquest series (finally found something of value on the show) where scientists find that the "costume" has moving facial muscles and features. Now that is one magic costume!

I will in fact see if one of the video sites has that analysis footage.

reply to post by jbondo



Yep-Computer enhancement experts were able to find some incredibly detailed features on the face and leg muscles. If anything, the more the footage is examined with modern technology, the more it verifies that it was an actual creature, and not a costume.

Since he isnt providing all images in original resolution, I doubt its real.

Why do I say he's not doing that? The two last shots must be taken at far less than a second apart. He was no doubt using burst sequence with a camera that obviously can focus very fast, which lead me to believe it was a decent camera (maybe even an SLR) and that there are plenty more photos (which may show something we're not meant to see).

However, I am unable to get any exif from the pictures (obvious secondary manipulation, be it resize or otherwise).

[edit on 13-2-2008 by merka]