Patterson Bigfoot may be bigger than first thought

between the muscular detail and the anomalies in anatomy between people and the Patterson creature (calling it an animal, while correct, doesn't seem right) that a trained kinesiologist would see, I can't see that being hoaxed.

I can claim that a UFO was Venus reflected through a methane bubble that happened to float by, but the 'real' explanation depends on more chance occurrences than I care to buy into...

So, to play debunker is not as easy as claiming that suits were made that imitated the musculature of a primate creature. if anyone saw LXG *League of Extraordinary Gentlemen* then even with modern prosthetics, mimicking the movement of live musculature is not so simple.

Not to be overly technical, but the ratios of limb to body are not correct in the Patterson film, and if the person is over 6.5 feet, then the shoulder span exceeds the upper ratio for shoulder width in humans. In essence, you'd have to disjoint the shoulders and spread them out farther to have them fit the dimensions. Padding on the suit? Padding wrinkles in telltale patterns, none of which of visible in the video.

(I am qualified to discuss this - I have a master's in kinesiology)

Ds

I have watched numerous tv programs about bigfoot in my lifetime and have never once heard it mentioned that the bigfoot on this film was female. Either that or I just let that snippet of info fly over my head a hundred times. That changes things a little in my opinion.

The guy that says he wore the suit in this film walks just like the bigfoot does here. I know you all know who I am talking about but I don't know his name. I saw him on tv show once.

I truly believe there is some sort of bigfoot creature in the wild. Whether the film is real or fake I haven't a clue, but I think someday they will be found.

Hopefully anyway

Originally posted by SLAYER69


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]

You can see the fore arm flex when the arm is moving back....just look in the middle of the arm in between the patches of hair....

Not a suit......Arms are also places diferently in shoulders than humans...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a60009d11344.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba8b090642ba.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0381bb438482.jpg[/atsimg]

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

)

Maybe the bigfoot species doesn't use the breasts like other primates anymore but still retains the overall feature.......

reply to post by Kandinsky


WOW never realized How big a Gorilla Head is.......It's HUGE !

K The Footage looks real to me.....It just looks like too real of a living thing to be a fake.......

Has anyone made a replicant suit of it ?

reply to post by SLAYER69


neat observastion...

especially it took so long befor it was considered a female as well....

I read and heard about Indians stories about these bigfoots...

they probly started dying off/going extinct about 5-7 hundred years ago,,I seen a show on dnr/forestry workers who had encounters which was very interesting...

theres some remote tribes in austrailia who claim they still see these creatures that resemble bigfoots....

the last 2 idiots from georgia and tom biscardi really hurt the bigfoot researchers with there hoax....
tom biscardi got some pissed off email from me!!!!,,,java bob is another looser......


well huggs everyone!!!

I put some thought into why a carcass has never been found:

1. Small population makes individual bodies harder to come by - simple chance and odds are in the creature's favor for decomposing entirely without being found.

2. Lots of land - I've been hunting by gun and camera for years, and once have come across a mountain lion in Colorado, and once in the Big Bend area - pretty good odds considering most never see them. I bucked the avg odds, and any good ranger will tell you that.
BF has a theoretical range of the Pacific Northwest through East Texas. Thats a range of how many hundreds of miles, multiplied by how many thousands from A to B?

3. Even low-level sentience will allow for concealment and evasion on a level that can foil the average hunter. We may be good trackers, but we are NOT trained to track something that knows we are coming. That means that if you want to track BF, with BF likely aware that you are coming, you need people who are trained in tracking people that don't want to be tracked - like SpecOps or other people who specialize is extracting people from outside territory.

I think these three characteristics are why we haven't seen BF yet, besides the chance occurances.

However, somewhere in San Saba county is a place locally known as a BF cave - it smells like a monkey house and has nesting-type activity every so often.

reply to post by Gemwolf


the bigfoot theory is nonesense, surely, we would of found it by now if it was just wondering around forests and such.

HHOOAAAXXX

The Patterson film.

Big Joke.

Look closely at that light spot on the turned head.

It is simply a 2 inch opening in the headpiece.

You can clearly see a man's eyes and nose there.

i admit im a real sceptic towards this subject, however there is some really interesting evidence on this thread.



theres also another page on here that suggests that big foot could be related to the subject of UFO's - one user even stating that it could be ''an interdimensional being'' - i thought it was a brilliant eccentric idea, but a little to far fetchd.

what do you guys think of that?

Originally posted by OhZone
The Patterson film.

Big Joke.

Look closely at that light spot on the turned head.

It is simply a 2 inch opening in the headpiece.

You can clearly see a man's eyes and nose there.

If you could "clearly" see anything in that film, people wouldn't still be debating it 40+ years later

The last episode of "Monster Hunters" did an excellent job of listing the evidence and breaking down the Patterson film. According to a Hollywood effects expert, even if they had a 7'4" person in a ape suit, his head could NOT have fit inside the mask and still be able to see out of the eye holes. Besides that, the legs also would have had no way of lining up with a tall human gait

Look at one of the more clear versions of the film. NOt the one on this page. Save it to your photo program, take out the frames applicable and examine them.
Once you see it you will never be able to see anything else but the obvious opening in the mask - the very lightest spot - it is a rectangle.
It is so light because the sun is shining on the mans' white skin.
His nose is outlined by the shadow it casts.

It is still debated because those who want to believe will not see.
They are concentrating on measurements etc. and not visual details.
I'm an artist and I see those things.

I do however believe that such as bigfoot does exist.
It is suspsect that he may be the remnant of the Neanderthal Man.

The USAF has the ability to settle this once and for all. They have many aircraft with nigh sensors that no animal could hide from. They should attempt to locate one and use special forces to capture it. It would make very realistic training.

They already spend our money flying fake training missions. I wonder how we could get them to use there training time to hunt areas for Bigfoot.

I have worked with the stuff I am talking about. There is no doubt they could find them if they exist.

reply to post by Xeven


So, ignoring the 'face in a rectangle' part as I stared at that film until my contacts got dry and didn't see it...

I think that re-tasking a satellite, while nice, is not the answer. Who wants to foot the thousands it costs, plus the bandwidth, plus the analysis of said imagery to make sure they didn't accidentally show us a hidden nuke silo or tunnel IR imprint, or any one of a dozen other classified items they put inthe middle of nowhere so they're not seen....

Originally posted by OhZone
Look at one of the more clear versions of the film. NOt the one on this page. Save it to your photo program, take out the frames applicable and examine them.
Once you see it you will never be able to see anything else but the obvious opening in the mask - the very lightest spot - it is a rectangle.
It is so light because the sun is shining on the mans' white skin.
His nose is outlined by the shadow it casts.

It is still debated because those who want to believe will not see.
They are concentrating on measurements etc. and not visual details.
I'm an artist and I see those things.

I do however believe that such as bigfoot does exist.
It is suspsect that he may be the remnant of the Neanderthal Man.

Well thank G*d!

All those Scientist's, photo & video analyst's, researchers and enthusiasts that have studied the footage for the past 40 years have apparantley never noticed what you have!

This is incredible! You will make history! Thank G*d you spotted this when no-one else did from 40 YEARS of research!

...............

How do you see the white area of the face?

Look at that image above, since there seem to be no better.
Can't you see that it is an opening for the man inside to see and to breathe?

Look at this clip .
Look at the face.face

Why exactly would a dark faced creature have such a light area right there?
And if you would,
notice that bigfoot in the film seems to be wearing snow shoes.
Also I do not think his arms are extra long.....looks like his fingers come to about mid-thigh, as in normal humans.

Have any of you looked at the other side of the story...those who say it is fake and why they think so?


[edit on 13-7-2009 by OhZone]

There are some old threads here on ATS discussing this...look them up.
Here is one of them.
fake

Originally posted by OhZone
Look at this clip .
Look at the face.face

You cant be serious?
You're basing your attempted debunking on that video


Man I recommend everybody watch and see how they literally distort the original film to suit their beliefs.

Yeah go ahead and watch it.
It's worth a good laugh.

Originally posted by OhZone
There are some old threads here on ATS discussing this...look them up.
Here is one of them.
fake

Yeah and that one was a real disaster for the " Debunkers"