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 Bigfoot Footage : Enhanced

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Here it is, a living breathing Sasquatch, on film. Of course, I do not expect you to believe this. Judge for yourself.



MK Davis, the man who enhanced the above clip is one of the men whose profession is the obsessive analysis of this footage.



There remains a strong conviction on the part of such experts that the evidence presented in the Patterson footage is nothing more than a living breathing primate. Perhaps we are stubborn enough in our perception of reality to deny real evidence.

There is no man, there is no suit.





posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I don't think it's necessary to declare one way or the other. In fact it seems more instructive to list the pluses and minuses.

Pro:
1. The amount of support and preparation needed to actually have a 'man in a suit' do that scene is not trivial. You'd need at least a support crew of about 2-4 people.

o Someone to take care of the costume, to make sure it wasn't messed up, or matted during storage.

o A person to help the actor get dressed.

o Someone to carry water and some nutrition since it's very hot being in such a suit.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence for this support crew.

2. The head seems too small to accommodate a human head inside the costume in relation to the 'body'. A lot of the time in costumes the head looks too big in comparison. It's not a big discrepancy but it's enough to cause a doubt.

Here you can see that the host, at 6'5 is a bit smaller than the life-size blow up of the PG-BF and the head is almost the same size as his. Now remember, to create that jaw and the crest, there would have to be prostheses added.



Below you see the way a typical head would be fitted on a costume:



There's more, but those are of recent interest.

Con:
1. The movements of the 'creature' just don't seem typical of a startled wild animal.
2. Most animals, when startled seek cover. This one just walks away.
3. Among other odd reactions, P and G don't follow the creature, and never go back to the site to set up a camp to spend some time in the only place that an actual clear sighting was found.

There's more but those jump out at me.

Here's an old vid from the late Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World







Enjoy!


[edit on 27-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Excellent post, Badge!
Thanks for including all that material. I have some of those very videos on my playlist


I agree with all your points except

3. Among other odd reactions, P and G don't follow the creature, and never go back to the site to


They did indeed follow her, all the way into the forest until they lost her tracks amidst the debris on the forest floor. And they did indeed return to the site, immediately, to cast the tracks. The tracks left were twice as deep as would be possible for even the largest man to create


Also, you mentioned how she (Patty) doesn't react like an animal who has been startled. The truth is, she was startled as Patterson recounts, she saw the men turning a corner on their horse. They must have looked like very tall animals to her. She is said to have stood up very quickly and started to back away in fear. This is all before Patterson manages to take out his camera.

At this point Patty is aware that these are not just animals, and instead of running away, she walks off in a sulky manner. Patterson says this is one of the main things in the film: She is not just looking at them to make sure they are still far away, she is looking at them as if to say 'Go away... you've startled me and now I'm leaving... why are you still here'? The Bigfoot is expressing the same kind of annoyance with Patterson that wild animals do! Anyone who has encountered a bear might understand - they act like this as well.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Excellent post, Badge!
Thanks for including all that material. I have some of those very videos on my playlist


They did indeed follow her, all the way into the forest until they lost her tracks amidst the debris on the forest floor. And they did indeed return to the site, immediately, to cast the tracks. The tracks left were twice as deep as would be possible for even the largest man to create


Supposedly there's a second reel of film that shows them following P for a short time, but then they explain that they turned back because they weren't sure if there were other BF that might turn on them or some kind of flimsy excuse like that.

Remember these were not yuppies, these were hardened cowboys who could live in the saddle and had guns and were on horseback. You feel pretty invincible in the woods with a set up like that, especially if there are two of you.

Therefore, I just can't take Patterson seriously. This is a guy who was almost desperate to have a sighting. Very little would have deterred him from tracking a real creature to the ends of the Earth.

At the very least they would have resupplied and gotten reinforcements and proceeded to try and track the creature. Or one of them would have stayed behind with the rifle and the other go back to get help or whatever needed.

They claim the creature went up a hill and they couldn't follow. That's nonsense. Horses can climb hills - you just dismount and lead the horse. Or you take the gun and go on foot.


Also, you mentioned how she (Patty) doesn't react like an animal who has been startled. The truth is, she was startled as Patterson recounts, she saw the men turning a corner on their horse.


I think it's unrealistic to take Patterson on his word especially for establishing a subtle characteristic like a startle response. When you see a wild animal, one of great strength and size move in the wild, there are certain 'wild' movements, sudden movements, rippling of flesh (like a horse shivvers) or something that give off this aura of alarm or fear or something. They would make at least momentary moves that a human could just not duplicate, such as reverting to quadrupedal gait for a short period. I see nothing like this, not even a subtle hint of 'wildness'.

I'm not saying it's a 'deal killer', just that it's something that is obvious in its absence. Though people say 'a person couldn't walk like that', a real 'wild' response would be something that a person in a suit could NOT do, such as jump 3 feet in the air and run in quadrupedal mode for a short distance.

Though BF's hallmark is walking upright, they would definitely had access to a quadrepedal mode of gait, because this is much faster than running and walking. An animal's body acts like a spring during all-fours running, making it inherently faster than an upright gait. BF would have kept this as an emergency escape mode if nothing else.

There is one shot right after the famous 'white bottom of the foot' frame where it -looks- like Patty could have dropped to all fours (her glutes become proinently visible) but it's disputed.


They must have looked like very tall animals to her. She is said to have stood up very quickly and started to back away in fear. This is all before Patterson manages to take out his camera.


I'm sure you're well meaning in your belief, but I'd suggest it's too much to take on faith.

In a sense you're agreeing with the idea of a startle response, but you're saying 'trust Roger, it happened, but he didn't film it'.


The Bigfoot is expressing the same kind of annoyance with Patterson that wild animals do! Anyone who has encountered a bear might understand - they act like this as well.


That's fine to think that but it's no a 'definitive' action. It's an interpretation of a look back over the shoulder, some might say an 'over interpretation.'


Though Patterson saved up enough money to go to Tibet in search of the creature, oddly he never organized a major exursion to go back to stake out Bluff Creek, the site of the only known real sigting of a BF in the wild. Why is a mystery, but it casts some doubt that's hard to dismiss.

2 cents.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Why make her female? If it was a hoax, why make her a female that the camera may not fully capture. How big of a woman could you imagine? That guy says he is 6'5" and he is no string bean, compare her arms, legs, torso etc to his. Shes huge! Look at her rippling muscles (especially legs).
I have followed beasts many times. They 'can' walk away like that. I have tracked moose and bears that have behaved very similarly. If startled however, they do tend to bolt (or occasionally charge!).

On the negative side; I don't know how effective those apparently heavily hairy breasts are going to be for feeding purposes.

They used to say there was no such thing as the Kraken. We have seen Squid now in excess of 32 feet; even though, not so long ago, that was officially preposterous, mythological nonsense. So I don't have any trouble believing there are Yeti or sasquatch roaming our remote places.
Some people debunk it because we don't see them or find them. Have you ever tried to find a wolverine? I don't believe they are comparably intelligent to a Yeti or Bigfoot; however, they don't want to be found...and for that reason, it is very difficult to ever find one. I imagine the sasquatch is far more intelligent than a wolverine and likely doesn't want to be found even more so. Knowing their habitat as well as they do I imagine they keep themselves out of detectability with relative ease.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Verus Arcanum
I have followed beasts many times. They 'can' walk away like that. I have tracked moose and bears that have behaved very similarly.
...
Some people debunk it because we don't see them or find them. Have you ever tried to find a wolverine? I don't believe they are comparably intelligent to a Yeti or Bigfoot; however, they don't want to be found...


Exactly right on both of those points. When I stumble upon a good sized Buck he will look at me and watch for a good 20 seconds sometimes before moving. A bear will look for a few seconds, turn and walk away slowly. Patty got up, saw two startled horses (one of them dislodging Patterson) and started walking away. Seems entirely natural to me.

And you're right, Sasquatch do not like being 'hunted' or tracked. If Patterson and Gimlin had not stumbled upon her at a river, she would have heard their horses long before they arrived. Patterson attested to this.

Hunting animals is one thing, Bigfoot has demonstrated intelligence in countless encounters - hiding behind trees, staying motionless or even swaying gently in the dark to mimic the breeze of trees. They have been observed communicating in groups with whistles, knocking on wood, and instead of charing people out of their territory, they unleash territory calls (which have been recorded) or they resort to throwing rocks.

What wild animal behaves like this? They are obviously intelligent and will avoid contact. And if they are intelligent, who's to say they get up and jump away like monkeys when scared? They are often 8' tall 600+ lb. massive beings who are just as likely to walk away - I've never seen a moose hop and skip away.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
It looks like a man in a costume with only his eye area lacking in hair.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Ok..so this is likely to get a torrent of hatemail

My ex went to tech school with S.Patterson... Patterson's nephew...over beers one afternoon S.Patterson admitted that his uncle admitted to their family that they made the film just to see if the could do it and become famous...and that he never expected that people would believe their bigfoot footage was real.
I for one believe that BF could be out there or have exsisted in the past, BUT, after hearing it straight from a family member I was so dissappointed that I had bought into a hoax for so long


and let the hate mail begin



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Though I've doubted Patterson, I don't think that a second-hand anecdote proves it was a hoax.

What is important to know is the process.

One expert interviewed said it would have taken a crew of about 4-6 to perform this gag.

You'd need one guy as a costume wrangler, they'd need to do multiple takes, the costume would cause the guy to sweat, risking ruining it.

Though there might be something like a 'lucky shoot', when you go to reenact something you realize how hard it is to get something on film that is that realistic and not have a blooper. (the creature trips, the fur lays wrong, the camera guy starts laughing)

So, in a way, getting that film is almost as 'crypto' as if it were a real creature - especially if they did it with just three people. That's one reason why it's still being debated.
 

(To the Poster above, Roger did a book on the Sasquatch and he had a female drawing in there - I've seen it on websites. So it's no stretch at all)



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I love that footage.I was a bit on the fence about it for years till the breast and the muscle movement was explained on a show I saw awhile back.Now I have one leg on the fence and one leg on the this is legit side.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join