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.

 

Supposed photo of "Patterson Bigfoot costume"?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I love to read your threads...can you perhaps make a new "Patterson Footage" thread with your take on it please...thank you

And maybe start a poll about how many ats'ers have seen a "bigfoot" ...ok, thank you

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Me myself have never seen a bigfoot, but I have been elk/deer hunting, and have walked up to deer about 10 feet away before I could see them, they are that well camoflauged!




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Tom Biscardi is a bad word in the Sasquatch research world. He is the gentleman (and I use the term loosely) who was involved in the Georgia Freezer Bigfoot hoax.

I was going to mention the breasts not being in the costume, but Slayer beat me to it.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
It doesn't matter really.

If it was a costume I'd love to see the guy they put inside it. He would surely take the world record for the largest shoulders, arm length, arm maneuverability, leg musculature and would probably be the head of the ministry of silly walks.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I love to read your threads...can you perhaps make a new "Patterson Footage" thread with your take on it please...thank you

And maybe start a poll about how many ats'ers have seen a "bigfoot" ...ok, thank you



You know I was thinking that very same thing.
I'll be U2Uing people when and if I do.


You never know
Stay tuned.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
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.


I believe Grover Krantz (may he rest in peace, always seemed too gruff to me but was a giant within the field) could explain the odd foot and it fits in very well with his research on how the Bigfoots foot is anatomically.

Not sure if anyone here would remember it or if they where active in the Bigfoot scene on the web a decade ago but there was for a while a guy that claimed to basically know everything about the Patterson film and it being a hoax, I forget his name and most of the details but he basically was claiming he was a part of it. I believe he had Photos of the suit and the suit itself. Caused quite alot of aggro for the research community but he eventually faded away and was discredited and thoroughly debunked by the Bigfoot research community.

He was basically called out on it and eventually was proven by the big wigs in the field to be an attention seeking fraud. Sure wish I remembered the details more, but that pic in the OP's vid link has me thinking its related to this decade old event sicne the claims photo and the like are similar.

The old Lost in Space ape suit is definitely an issue (I remember noticing the similarity my self as a kid watching reruns of the show in the 80's) but to me while they are very similar to my eye ones a guy in a suit the others a living animal. Also that suit in the vid, has absolutely no muscle definition in the arms, even with a guy wearing it the arms bulk just wouldn't even compare to the Patterson footage, even if it was Patterson or Gimlin was wearing it.

Edit:- Wow just actually watched the vid... is this guy actually trying to make people believe his rubbish?.. same Hair, hands and arms?


And is he really stating that the chest breast profile line against the upper arm behind it is the zipper line?!

Notice the photo has no head visable also... and the first thing he hits the viewer with is... the patterson still and big bold red letters stating "Photo of Patterson Bigfoot Costume" rather than say "alleged Patterson Bigfoot Still". Way to color your evidence.

Sure theres still questions about the PG film, but after 25 years of seeing it from childhood to adulthood every time i see it im more and more convinced its the real deal.

It aint no monkey suit.

Hmm I think tomorrow ill get out all my Bigfoot Doco tapes and have a Bigfoot marathon


[edit on 28-5-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Im no bear expert but I was thinking it looks VERY similar to a bear skin?

What does anyone else think?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Genus_Unknown
 


Can boobs be the smoking gun? In this case . . . if you were going to fraud something up, would you make a female Bigfoot suit? It's really a compelling piece of film and if it's fake, and I don't think it is, it's gotta be the best ever.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Granted, that short YouTube clip is a bit sad and laughable, but you really need to check out the guy's website. To say Mr. Blevins may may a bit "religiously eccentric" is putting it mildly, just check out his other investigations. Noah's Ark is a big kick in the pants. But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day and that's better than most ATS posters.
But I digress...

Mr Blevins brings up some very valid points on his website. And there are some interesting coincidences as well. For instance, the long-running rumour that Make-up man John Chambers was involved in the suit fabrication. Mr. Chambers did a lot of television work back in the 1960's and quite a bit of it was uncredited. Chambers worked on lots of shows like "Lost In Space" of which several investigators believe a version of the PG Bigfoot costume was fashioned from. Funny enough, Mr. Blevins points out similarities with another make up artist from that time period, Wah Chang, who just happened to be working at the same studios as John Chambers. Even more interesting, both Chambers and Chang would have worked together to some degree as both were involved with the original series, Star Trek which is also in the time frame of the PG film.

Mr. Blevins also has a picture on the website of what he believes was used as the head for Patty and honestly, I have to give him credit. It really looks plausible. It was a head sculpted by Wah Chang and it really is the closest I have seen to being the head of Patty.

Go visit the site for yourself. It would be easier to accept some of Mr. Blevins conclusions without all of the religious overtones and if he would just turn on spellcheck, LOL. But the information is still valid and useful.

As for my beliefs. I totally believe in Bigfoot. :-) Had my own sightings so there really is no doubt for me. As for the PG Film and Patty, I'm sorry to say I'm not 12 years old anymore and no longer believe for the sake of believing. I think the film is fake. But I sure hope someone proves me wrong.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think its a real animal in the Patterson footage. It was squatted down at the creek when they rode up, it stood up and looked at them, didn't scream, wave arms or anything. Its several yards from the horses. It spooked 3 I am guessing well trained horses since Patterson was an ex rodeo cowboy. I don't think a man in an ape suit, yards from them, standing quietly would spook 3 horses, they would know by the smell it was human even if it looked funny. Patterson had been seeing prints and like anyone that has ever watched Wild Kingdom he was going to the water source to try to catch one on film. It must have been his lucky day. There are people that have hit large lottery jackpots more than once, stranger things have happened. I watched the digitized version and the muscle movement is obvious. If that a man in a suit all I can say is great calves.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Americans blow stuff up today.

Excuse the worse of us right wing today



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I always thought the Patterson film was a dude in a monkey suit. Not because of the film, but the person holding the camera. Now it looks like there is finally solid proof that Patterson hoaxed the footage.

For awhile it was thought that the suit might of came from Morris costumes, because he supposedly send Patterson one of his suits. Then the suit might have come from the movie set of Planet of the Apes, but no it came from the set of 100 Million Years before B.C.

100 Million Years before B.C. was released in 1967 the same year as the Patterson film. So this could very well have been a left over prop. I think this is a slam dunk, but I am sure some will disagree.

Picture of Patterson bigfoot and a ape from the movie side by side.

Another pic from the movie.


Props to Loren at Crytomundo for the pictures and the story.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


That is a good article. The problem is the head of the creature is different than the head of the ape-like creature in the movie as it is much more pointed.

The show Monster Quest had a costume maker recreate the film using possible models to find out the size of the creature. It appears it would of been almost impossible for a person to use the head without losing the ability to see through it.

The next thing should be to try and see if there are surviving costumes of the apemen.

Thank you for posting that article.

www.history.com...

[edit on 7/16/2009 by kidflash2008]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
.... When scientists did an analysis of the footage, ..... the creature was found to be around 8 feet tall, ...... of top of that, ... they could clearly identify muscle groups under the fur, .......

even down to the neck movement, ..... as apes cannot turn their head's without turning their shoulders, ..... as the sasquatch in the film clearly does.

... I dont care how good makeup artists were back then, ... or now, ... these kinds of things are almost impossible to replicate.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Here is a link to a video of the supposed creator of the suit and the man who actually wore it in the film. I still dont know what or whom to believe.


Bigfoot



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:48 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.


The reason the soles of the bigfoots feet look flat, even like boots or shoes is because that area seems to be reflecting light back at the camera. Its the same reason that you cannot make out much detail in the rocks which litter the ground in that area. The sun light is too strong.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninecrimes
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...

:/


Many see a "Face" But for most of us it's not a man's face in a old style football helmet covered with fur glued to it.





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.



The arms are very long. Go to any pic you will see a very extended forearm. Second with regards to the "White" soles of their feet? It's walking through dirt barefoot how do you expect it to look.






(click to open player in new window)



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The newer episode of Monster Quest which was about Sasquatch evidence will probably be available shortly on their website. (I did link up some Bigfoot videos). That was an extensive look at the Patterson Film along with other evidence such as footprints.

Just looking at the creature walking calmly suggests to me it is not a hoax. They would of had the creature running so people would not be able to tell if it is a costume. The breasts are the clincher as I just don't think the men would of thought of that to add to the film.

Whenever someone claims the footage is fake I do think it needs to be thoroughly examined. I think the Patterson footage will hold up to any test.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I heard the suit may have come from that early episode of Star Trek that had bigfoot type creatures. The suit looks fake in certain areas like the breasts, (too big and bulbous, and hang too low). The buttocks are too big and hairy. I don't think a real bigfoot would have been so calm and just walk away. They are too shy and reclusive to let humans get so close.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join