Supposed photo of "Patterson Bigfoot costume"?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
While I was "Youtube Bigfoot hunting" (
Yes, it's a slow week in the crypto world) I happened upon a video clip that compares the Patterson Bigfoot with a supposed picture of the costume that was used to (supposedly) hoax the footage.




In this video you will see a photo of the costume Roger Patterson used for his Bigfoot film. The photo show the costume before they added the padding and breast. However the photo is that of the costume Patterson used. Leroy Blevins Sr. copyright 2009


This is the first time I've heard of this photo. My searches returned no results (other than the Youtube video). The comparison is very interesting but doesn’t mean a thing unless the source of the photograph can be verified – and as a matter of fact NO information about the supposed photo is given.

Does anyone else know something about this?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Interesting video. This maybe of interest to you as well.



In fact, for years it has been "generally known" in the Hollywood special effects makeup community that Academy Award® winning makeup artist John Chambers fabricated the suit in the Patterson Bigfoot film.

In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967.......

I first heard the rumor that John Chambers made the Patterson suit from anthropologist/cryptozoologist and Strange Magazine reader Alex Downs in 1992. Alex was working at the Smithsonian Institution for the summer and we spoke on several occasions. Alex told me then that he had heard about Chambers making the suit from author/producer Don Glut.


LINK

The article makes a fantastic read, and purposes more questions.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Never even heard of this prior to, well, right now...

I have reservations as to the validity, no information given on how he came by the suit (?), or who he got the suit (?) from. How does he so blithely identify a zipper on the original film?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
In my opinion, the debunk-photo is no more conclusive of the suit being fake, than the original photo is conclusive of Sasquatch's existence...

:/



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Wow, this video makes some 'vague at best' comparisons. While I am up in the air on whether or not the Patterson footage is genuine (lets face it, we don't really know either way), this 'earth shattering' revelation is even less convincing, in my opinion.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
In regards to Zippers and John Chambers:


Chambers' innovative Planet of the Apes make-up relied primarily on expressive masks, not on body suits, and whatever seams or "zippers" would have appeared on the Planet of the Apes suits were covered up by clothing. Clothing was also used to cover up certain folds and seams on the Ewok costumes in Return of the Jedi (1983). Even when the costumes became more elaborate in the 1970s, the titular creature in the 1976 film version of King Kong still had a clearly-defined separation between the body of the suit and the head mask. Folds in the material have appeared in every film in which there was human costumed as an ape up until Gorillas in the Mist (1988), and they can be identified as such either in close-up or at a distance.
Wiki



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I was always under the impression that the Patterson suit came from Phillip Morris of Morris Customs. Morris claims he sent Patterson a gorilla suit in the mail. But this can not be proving.

But this is a interesting twist to the story.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 




Where are the breasts? Patterson's film shows a female bigfoot. The supposed suit has no breasts!



[edit on 26-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Gemwolf
 




Where are the breasts? Patterson's film shows a female bigfoot. The supposed suit has no breasts!



[edit on 26-5-2009 by SLAYER69]


You know, it wouldn't suprise me if its a ploy to make some moolah. We'll probably see this 'patterson costume' up for sale on Ebay soon for mega bucks.

Agreed, the creator seems to have over looked to large and wobbly details from his ground breaking reveal...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
For me, its a hoax. The suit that is.

One point I will......point out, is the arms in the suit (the picture) are not as long as the ones in the patterson footage. This is just a guy trying to get his grubby hands on some cash.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Pretty lousy photo. I can't even tell if it's a costume to begin with, or a bearskin. A photo that included the head would be a huge help. As it is, I don't think this really qualifies as convincing "proof" any one way or another.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'm not convinced by Mr Leroy Blevins...





I know we 'deny ignorance,' but I'll be depressed if the Patterson footage is proven to be a hoax. I prefer to think it might be a hoax without 'knowing' it is


EDIT to correct mistake due to writing whilst startled. My favorite ghost photos, critters and alien stories always turn out fake. For the love of God....leave me some mysteries in this world...sob...

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Geezzzz, people. Look close at the Patterson film as the so called beast walks away...after it turns to look back....now look at the soles of the feet.
There's lots of stop pictures of that frame. Now the foot is made and looks like a flat boot sole. The bottom of the foot for sure DON"T look like a foot.
You folks just ignore the truth even if it's right there in front of you. Now take a deep breath and get over it....IT'S FAKE....THAT BIGFOOT FILM IS FAKE.

Now for god sake don't say prove it...look up the picture yourself.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


Where are the breasts? Patterson's film shows a female bigfoot. The supposed suit has no breasts!
[edit on 26-5-2009 by SLAYER69]


According to the YouTube description:

The photo show the costume before they added the padding and breast.


Perhaps a bit convenient?


Originally posted by merky
...You folks just ignore the truth even if it's right there in front of you. Now take a deep breath and get over it....IT'S FAKE....THAT BIGFOOT FILM IS FAKE.
...

I'm sorry but 100's (if not 1000's) of scientists and researchers have to this point been unable to conclusively prove that the film is fake. (Nor could they prove it's real...) I doubt if you'll convince us it's fake.



Yes, the bottom of the foot looks strange and in some ways "unnatural", but as with everything else with the Patterson footage we can debate for hours about this single frame... It simply doesn't provide a conclusive answer.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


I like that picture although it causes an issue with some over the "Foot Padding" It does show a very powerfully built creature just look at the neck, shoulders and arms. The person wearing a "Suit" would had to have been a massive body builder to fill it so tightly. They make gorilla suits but nothing along those lines.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
i wasn't sure,,,,,, but the buttocks comparison did look similar,,,,,

but why is his photo missing the head????

wouldn't that solve the whole sha-bang and make it case closed?????



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Try looking at it from a different perspective.

If you had, in your posession, the actual suit of this "hoax". Wouldn't you be more inclined as to proove its authenticity?

I mean, take a few photo's, demostrate how this footage was achieved rather than putting a grainy photo of it and claim it to be the actual suit used?

Even if the footage is fake, I would bet my life that this is not the suit that was used, rather a sad, pathetic fool trying to make some quick cash at anyone's expense.

tO



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by merky
 




Now for god sake don't say prove it...look up the picture yourself.


You're the one making the claim. I've always thought the film was somewhat inconclusive myself. I know there is something out in the woods, I've seen it myself...doesn't however, mean the film isn't a fake...but there is no proof one way or another. Experts in the field are divided, to my knowledge, nearly 50/50.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
How can the costume have its ass and 'zipper on front' on the same side? O_o



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by merky
Geezzzz, people. Look close at the Patterson film as the so called beast walks away...after it turns to look back....now look at the soles of the feet.
There's lots of stop pictures of that frame. Now the foot is made and looks like a flat boot sole. The bottom of the foot for sure DON"T look like a foot.
You folks just ignore the truth even if it's right there in front of you. Now take a deep breath and get over it....IT'S FAKE....THAT BIGFOOT FILM IS FAKE.

Now for god sake don't say prove it...look up the picture yourself.


Taking into account glare from the sun, whatever this thing is actually walking through, and the fact that it is an old and grainy picture, pointing out the soles of the feet doesn't really do much to discount it either, IMO. Take into account the soles of its feet would have to be pretty leathery to deal with the terrain it lives in.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join