I have never made my mind up on the Patterson film. So many pro's and cons through the years.

I guess the one thing I have never been able to get past is the soles on the feet of the apparent Bigfoot. They look flat and smooth surfaced with no visible anatomy such as arches, toes, heels, muscles and so on. This appears to clash with the apparent trace evidence such as footprints.

To be honest they look very similar to what you see on standard gorilla suits.

This simulation sounds interesting for sure... but the issue is that sims can be littered with anomalous data and interpretations that ultimately taint the results.

When I look back on the original footage I don't see a figure standing over 7 feet tall but I will admit that perspectives can be tricky.

Interesting none the less. S&F!

IRM

This footage takes me back to being a kid and watching it with my brother in awe. For this reason, I'd be pleased if it was confirmed as authentic footage of a Bigfoot. It's unfortunate that hoaxers have taken away the joy and wonder and replaced them with automatic doubts and jaded cynicism

Whatever the truth of the video, nobody has ever definitively nailed it as real or hoax. If we're now talking about 7' 4", it lends itself to the 'real' side of things purely because a 7'4" gorilla costume would stay on the clothes rack for a long time. Then again, it could be made specially for the video? Round and round we go again....

The part that makes me think it is real is the creature had breasts to make it a female. No man who was going to fake this would of thought of that, let alone make them so real. The stride also does not look faked.

Other analysis has found muscle movement, something that could not be faked with a suit or costume. I am among the few who will state the film is the real deal.

Of course the first thing that I did was check out Cryptomundo and Loren Coleman to see what he had to say. No commentary yet, really.

Looks like Cryptomundo will be following it, though.

The verdict was out for me until there was some motion stabilizing software used. The thing that makes me think this is real is that if they are going to fake a "Bigfoot" why make a fake "Female" Bigfoot. When nobody at the time could tell from the footage that in fact it's female?

Look at the way it turns it's head above. Note that it has to turn it's whole upper body because it's head sits low on it's shoulders like an ape with it's chin in it's chest like a gorilla and not like a man in a ape suit.

Not only that. Look at the forearms in the above images they are much longer than a mans more like an ape and look at the shoulders and forearms on this one here. Much too long and muscular for a human.


I think it's a Gigantopithecus blacki or a distant relative. Look at this thing it's built like a tank and it's only a female.





[edit on 16-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

[edit on 16-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Patterson footage is real, possibly the only real footage of Bigfoot we have.

As many have said previously, there are features on the creature and nuances about it's movement that make it unlikely to be a hoax.

The arms are the first big sign. For a person to be inside the suit swinging their arms, they would have to have them broken somewhere between the shoulder and elbow to allow for the bend that is produced in the footage.

Watch the black and white stabilized piece above, and the arm closest just after she turns back from facing the camera. Look at the angle.

Not to mention that the arms would have to be dislocated and pulled out of their sockets to reach the distance that the shoulders are apart.

The legs are another interesting feature. On some frames, which have been kindly stabilized above, you can see individual muscles (that are common to all large primates) moving under the skin. These muscles have been identified in the past by scientists. How would someone have hoaxed it to that level of detail all those years ago?

And as Slayer69 brought up, why the breasts? If you are a male going to fake a Bigfoot, surely you would stick to the stereotype of the creature and make it male.

Originally posted by fooffstarr

And as Slayer69 brought up, why the breasts? If you are a male going to fake a Bigfoot, surely you would stick to the stereotype of the creature and make it male.

That has to be the biggest reason for it's authenticity IMO.
Think about it who would go through all that trouble at the time knowing nobody would be able to see that?

I'd like to make a comment on the foot argument. If you've ever seen pictures of a black persons foot or the feet of several tribes (African and others) the soles of their feet almost appear like those of the creature/bigfoot in the video. Many tribesman that walk around barefeet have very thick soles, usually white appearing since the skin is always so dry and flaky. I don't know it's hard to explain but I've seen lots of African tribes people with feet that looked like they had a big pad on their feet.

The fact that the bigfoot in that picture is a female with wiggly/very real breasts is fascinating and amazing. There is no way in hell that these men who were not the most intelligent would have designed something like that. Plus just because this creature was alive back in the 60's does not mean it would have survived much past that time. I mean there was A LOT of very remote wilderness back then in California compared to today. It could very well have lived unseen during those times. Not so nowadays.

If I HAD to pick I'd say it's most definitely real. But I due have some skepticism. The fact that the suit has yet to be produced is also a huge argument for it being real. I mean if this was a hoax it should be very easy to produce the actual suit. I haven't even seen ANY suit that was even close to it from that era either.

People are raising interesting points that still don't nail the footage as conclusive. How many reasons does life give us to go looking at 'monkey boobs?' Thankfully, not many and my ISP has probably just put me on some international 'monkey porn' list My thinking is that the Patterson figure has full and hair-covered breasts. Neither of these facts correlate with primate breasts...





Fair enough, we don't have images of Bigfoot to compare. The point here is that, maybe the figure is real because of the breasts and maybe it's fake because of the breasts.

There's one or two conflicts with common witness descriptions, but we don't know how accurate or honest they are to compare to footage with the same provenance

My greatest intrigue regarding sasquatch/ bigfoot is that they simply can't exist in N America (logically). No way. Then where do the witness accounts come from? They can't all be hoaxes surely? Very puzzling subject...

(now ATS owns my 'monkey porn' collection, I can delete them from my harddrive )

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

In 1967 the number of people who had a video camera was much much smaller than it is today. And the number of people today that are actively looking for Bigfoot with much better cameras and technology is greater than it has ever been and there has not been a video since this one to show this much footage of "bigfoot".

How is it that these guys go out on their first expedition with a super 8 and capture this video footage, when countless others since have been spending huge amounts of time and money and technology to attempt to get a video that is even close to this and none have. There really arent any videos that i can remember seeing that have anything close to the length or clarity of this classic video. Except for the obvious fakes and reproductions.

I don't think the equipment has anything to do with it really. Paterson went out on horse back. The horse could have masked their odors and Bigfoot may have not noticed them approaching. They were not in a loud pick up truck or an ATV which is what many people do these days they drive or ride motorized vehicles around making a ruckus looking for Bigfoot.

If it is closer to a human than an ape then it thinks more like a man and would be smarter than say a bear or any other wild animal and maybe and this is of course speculation on my part, can think and decide to avoid us and hide and figure out other ways to avoid detection.

Edit to add

Hey Kandinsky Have any Baboons?
I'm partial to Baboons

[edit on 17-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

The Patterson footage can't be touched by debunks.
They tried and tried and tried everything.

It was no man in a suit, a suit like that couldn't have been build that well in the 60's.
obviously not CGI.
They had an olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements WITHOUT the suit, and he couldn't do it.

So? what now?
The reason this film is not seen as proof is because the fat cats that make money off of bigfoot shows and what not are keeping it quite.
That's why they never find squat in the shows.
It's the american way.

Oh and, I don't know why people don't do this for everything, but, why not give the one guy alive a lie detector test.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by Alexander the Great]

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
The Patterson footage can't be touched by debunks.
They tried and tried and tried everything.

It was no man in a suit, a suit like that couldn't have been build that well in the 60's.
obviously not CGI.
They had an olympic athlete try and recreate it's movements WITHOUT the suit, and he couldn't do it.

So? what now?
The reason this film is not seen as proof is because the fat cats that make money off of bigfoot shows and what not are keeping it quite.
That's why they never find squat in the shows.
It's the american way.

Oh and, I don't know why people don't do this for everything, but, why not give the one guy alive a lie detector test.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by Alexander the Great]

The bottomline is there has NEVER been any picture of a suit that was built in the 1960's that looked like the one in the video. Moreover, the actual suit used by the men who supposedly faked the entire thing has NEVER been brought to light.

That argument in and of itself is hard evidence.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
My greatest intrigue regarding sasquatch/ bigfoot is that they simply can't exist in N America (logically). No way. Then where do the witness accounts come from? They can't all be hoaxes surely? Very puzzling subject...

This is appears a logical enough supposition, although the same may be said of Australia, perhaps even more so, yet I have heard an account of an encounter with the Yowie of New South Wales that I believe.

So where does that leave us?

Is it possible that the Mapinguary of Brazil and the Amazon Basin migrated North to Sasquatch territory just as man migrated in ancient times?

Isolated as Australia is and home to no primates (except Humans!) it only has indigenous Marsupials however the story of the Yowie or the Yahoo(!) stems from the earliest Aboriginal folklore.

I had such a story related to me although it consists of the "friend of a friend" variety in that it happened to a colleague of a ranger that was tracking for my team in the Queensland Rainforest.

Now, this guy was a no-nonsense kind of guy, he'd been a soldier (special forces!) and was regularly at the forefront of attacking the drug growers in the jungle, abseiling in and living off his wits to destroy irrigation encampments and drug fields carved from the rainforest. I have no reason to doubt his honesty in the face of everything else I know about him. He was cool under any circumstance; while tracking though dense forest, he turned about and casually asked us to have a look at his eye, "Cos I think I've got a leech in there...". Sure enough, a leech had attached itself to his eyeball socket and we had to carefully extract it.

He told a tale of another ranger camped on a shale embankment in the forests of New South Wales. Sitting at the campfire alone , the ranger noticed his dog acting up as if someone was approaching. The ranger tried to calm his dog and took up a ready stance. At this stage the dog became extremely agitated and barked furiously at the opposite shore, splashing into the low water. The dog's agitation was one of fear rather than protection and the ranger became aware of the cracking of branches and undergrowth from the facing embankment. It crashed through the trees getting closer, reached the treeline and waited, the ranger with his shotgun ready, the dog barking.

The whole night was spent on guard feeding the fire but when morning came he investigated the scene and found the branches and vines pushed back as if a giant immensely strong person had waded through the thick of it. No visual "sighting" evidence, no clues as such - but - if you've ever been in the rainforests of Australia you'll know that there is nothing that does that kind of damage. People don't just wander around in there, 5 days trek into the canopy, it just doesn't happen. Something was in there, something big and something strong - certainly not a "man f*cking about".

Take that as a campfire story if you will, but I have always believed it. Hell, I've seen an Aborigine pull fish after fish from a river using a piece if string and a fashioned hook while we hooked nothing with our fancy rods and lines, an Aborigine walking barefoot over razor sharp flints while our expensive gortex hiking boots were ripped to shreds, I've seen a chap climb almost vertical inclines with a heavy canvas (i.e. a tarpaulin) bedding roll slung over his shoulder, jumping up like a mountain goat while we, trained and fit as we were, wheezed behind with our lightweight rucksacks and gear.

I'm open minded about what it can be, that place is full of surprises if you look for them and maybe the Yowie is just always out of sight.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Where are their young and where are their dead?

Well, I'll bleat on about Australia for just another post in relation to the point above. Although a completely valid point I will just relay this story. Trekking through the rainforest where bush was tough going we would come across large areas of flattened undergrowth, probably a good 25ft in radius.

These were caused by herds of wild pigs bedding down for the night as they scavenged the forest floor. Now, we're not talking little pygmy pigs here, this boars were bad-assed and could gut you like a fish with their tusks. The thing is, we never saw or heard any - not in the wild, even though they were numerous and travelled in large groups.

Also, the canopy was a haven for tree-kangaroos, little fellas that mooched about the upper branches. We never saw or heard them until we made camp under some particularly fruitful trees and were pelted by the kernels of the fruits they were chowing down as they dumped their trash. Shimmying up a tree, we could still see nothing as they seemingly vanished quickly and silently into the night.

They were real things, but were essentially invisible.

I totally take your point, but it is worth remembering that the absence of sh*t doesn't mean that the bear hasn't been in the woods.