It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Patterson Footage creature proven NOT a suit

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+21 more 
posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:08 PM
I've been combing the web for the past while trying to find a legal way I can show you this footage but I've had trouble. So those of you in the US should go through to THIS LINK and portal to the Monsterquest page to view the episode I am about to discuss.

I know many of you have given up hope regarding the professionalism and quality of Monsterquest, but I still watch it on a weekly basis and was stunned when they finally managed to prove something of drastic importance.

Several weeks ago an episode was aired called 'Crucial Evidence' that purported to finally prove once and for all that the Patterson film was genuine. I had my doubts, but am so impressed by what they proved and discovered that this thread is going to be a quick presentation of the key points for those of you who do not watch the show.

Point 1 - Mid-Tarsal Break

This joint in the centre of a primate's foot is one of the key points aired in this episode. A recent discovery, this trait that allows a foot to bend the opposite direction of a humans, is native to only non-human primates.

Move your foot for a second. Put your heel on the floor and your toes in the air. Now place your foot flat on the floor. Try to keep your toes on the floor and bend the back of your foot upwards. Your foot arches in the centre to try and do this. With a Mid-Tarsal Break, the foot simply bends at the centre, leaving the toes and fleshy front of the foot flat on the floor.

Several purportedly real Sasquatch tracks were analyzed with this unique trait in mind, and it was found that they showed the characteristics of having a mid-tarsal break. According to MQ, less than 6 experts in the US would have the knowledge to accurately create this generally unrecognized trait in a primate's foot.

How does this translate to the Patterson footage? The walking motion. The toes are planted on the ground, and then the rear of the foot hinges upwards before the foot lifts off the ground. A mid-tarsal break. This CANNOT be reproduced by a human foot without breaking the bones.


Point 2 - Scale and Attributes

It has been said by many skeptics in the past that the Patterson footage could easily contain a man in a suit. They claim there is nothing in the movement of the creature or it's limb - to - body ratio that could refute this theory. They have finally been proven wrong.

A hollywood costume design expert, who worked on such films as Night of the Living Dead, made at first a startling discovery. The Patterson film was not actually filmed on a 25mm lens as believed all these years. Using computer algorithms and a scientific formula, he proved that the film was actually filmed on a 15mm lens.

This automatically voids all previous analysis of the film and the creature as their calculations have now been proven wrong.

Using this new discovery, it was worked out that the creature is approximately 7ft 2inches tall.

This measurement allowed for the first ever body ratio analysis to be done on the film. It takes the height of the creature into account and determines if a human could meet the ratio required to fit into the suit and move as shown in the video.

The result is that a human COULD NOT even fit in the suit let alone move with the gait shown in the Patterson footage. Here is why:

1) The dimensions are wrong - A humans arms and legs would not accurately fit into the legs and arms of the Patterson creature. The joints are placed incorrectly.

2) The eyes are in the wrong place - For a human to be in the suit, his or her head would have to be protruding from the top of the suit to be able to see. In this case, if they were lower in the suit they would be walking blindly. This cannot be the case, as the creature looks directly at the camera as it is walking away. How would they know where to look if they couldn't see?

3) The fur - The stretch fur required to create this suit (the skin and fur does stretch over apparent muscles as seen in the enhanced footage) was not invented until the mid 70's.


That is basically the key points of the episode, and I STRONGLY encourage anyone with any doubts in my explanation to watch it for themselves. These experts know their stuff, and I have researched their names and credentials online before posting this thread. They are real recognized professionals in their fields.

I believe these facts prove once and for all that 'Patty' is not a man in a suit. It was a real, living creature.

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:35 PM
Yeah i seen that. I seen a different one earlier where they focused on the face and how the lips moved and it was not a fake. Good thread. S&F

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:42 PM
Yup,I also believe that this is the real deal.I've read somewhere that this was a female sasquatch,because its has breasts(which are clearly visible).

I truly believe that this video could not have been a man in a suit.Heck,that would be tough to hoax even today.

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by fooffstarr

The proof has continuously added up to say that the Patterson film is real and the more times I watch it the more blown away I am. You can see the muscles moving, if this is was a suit it'd have to be the most sophisticated hoax in history and EXPENSIVE. If it was a hoax wouldn't Patterson have filmed the creature WAY longer, I mean if you're going to go the extra mile and pay someone to make a state of the art suit why produce so short a film?

A guy in a suit just doesn't add up though the skeptics continue to write it off. When I was a teenager I too was skeptical of it but the more times I watched it and listened to the debate the more convinced I became that I was looking at an actual undocumented North American Great Ape. I also became sick of the same skeptic excuses...

Like the tired old "If they're real bring me a body" excuse. We're talking about a great ape that is typically very shy of humans that likely has a limited population and lives in dense forested areas where you'd be hard pressed to find the remains of a common woodland animal (because of the forest ecosystem quick decomposition, scavengers, etc). They also might bury their dead, who knows how intelligent they are?

Anyway, good post

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:58 PM
I don't know if bigfoot is real or not, but I really don't think the Patterson footage is real. Instead of typing a long post about it, this guy explains it just as good or better then I could.

I know some of you guys will strongly disagree with this article, so take it easy with the replies.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by jd140

I utterly disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion

It is obvious to me the intent behind the article, which is clearly shown through the use of such words as 'scumbag'. How objective is that? It is clear that the author has a pre-conceived opinion of Patterson and is simply building his flawed arguments around it.

But once again, they are entitled to their opinion... although that opinion has now been proved false.

Unless a skeptic can clearly and conclusively counter the points I have made in the OP and that are far more skillfully made in the MQ episode, there really isn't much else to say about the link.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:06 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

I'm not saying he put in the best of words, he could have been nicer.

I don't follow the Patterson movement any longer. If its real then its real, as of right now, unless they have recanted, I'm going with the people who knew him.

If they have recanted then I'm going to put in the category of pretty cool to bad they didn't have a better shot.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by jd140

Patterson's character was also addressed in the aformentioned MQ episode.
His biographer, who has been writing the book for a staggering 18 years says he has never heard a bad word about the man from people that knew him. His aim was to write an unbiased biography based on his life, but he says he is having trouble finding people who actually new him that can speak for then negative.

To me that speaks volumes.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

So those people have recanted or has it been proven they never said those things?

Like I said if its real then its real. I haven't followed it for a while now and I have caught a little of the episode you have posted about. I wasn't really impressed. MonsterQuest is entertaining and while not as bad as UFO hunters its almost there.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by jd140

I wouldn't really consider that source you cited to be credible at all. He only used information that he misconstrue to try to debunk the film, instead of taking all of the evidence and making an objective opinion. The youtube video that is embedded in his article is nonsense and utter rubbish, and can be proven false in less than 5 seconds. Where are the breasts on the costume? And it was a man inside the suit, so him having them is ruled out too. The author of that article even said in the first paragraph that the Patterson footage depicts a female, so he obviously knew about the breasts. Funny how that could slip by him...

He also neglects to mention the polygraph that Patterson took saying this film was real and not a hoax, which he passed. Not to mention that this was written in May of 2009, so much of the newer video analyses show that there are actually facial movements of the creature, which would be pretty hard to do in a costume. He uses Wikipedia and his own personal opinion/disbelief/speculation for half of his information posted anyways.

I'm not attacking you, as you're just trying to provide counter-evidence for the debate. But I'm just letting you know that your source doesn't really know what he's talking about. There are much better arguments against it being real out there than this guy's blog.

IMO, I believe this film could be the real deal, though I'm not exactly 100% positive yet. But I'd say I'm definitely over 90% sure this is actually a real creature and not just a guy in an ape suit. Every time somebody sets out to analyze the footage, more and more evidence and details come out in favor of it being real. Only time will tell, though.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by LetTheTruthBeTold
He also neglects to mention the polygraph that Patterson took saying this film was real and not a hoax, which he passed.

I missed that entirely, thanks for bringing it up.

Yeah back in the 60's when the film was taken, Patterson approached National Wildlife magazine and presented them with the footage. Being naturally skeptical, they refused to publish his story until he agreed to a lie detector test. He was reportedly eager to have it done to verify his claims, and when it was completed he was vindicated.

Lie detectors are not 100% foolproof, but they are the most reliable method we have to tell if someone is being truthful. Patterson certainly believed he captured a mythical creature on film, and he swore so until his dying day.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by fooffstarr]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by fooffstarr

I'm sorry dude, but I've seen shows that prove it was not a suit and I've seen shows that prove it was a suit, I guess it depends who the head honcho is on the set of the tv show at the time and what his opinion of the finding are that depends on the 'proof' of this or that, that in and of itself pretty much proves almost every 'proof' show on tv can easily be faked, but I personally believe after seeing the dude walking and the ape walking and hearing enough testimony from people who claim they know the guy, say he confessed that he made it to sell for what he thought would be a fortune, he never made a fortune off it, his hoax backfired on him and now it continues to go through the speculation loop forever just like the loch ness monster and every other non existant creature, just think about how many animals need to exist to be able to cross breed before they go extinct, basic math shows it's very unprobable for them to exist, there would need to be x number of them, not a few dozen but at least a few hundred, when it's impossible to prove if 1 exists and the fact that a few hundred need to exist for the gene pool to allow them to not be extinct basic logic says they don't exist, unless that was the last one, and if it was it's probably dead by now.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold

I can't even see the breast on the Patterson video unless someone digitally enhances it and then points them out. Just because it is a man in the costume doesn't mean the costume cannot have breasts. Whats to keep me from donning a pregnancy suit and putting a dress on?

Yea its from May of this year. That was only 4 months ago, its not like it was from the 1990's.

You are saying that his evidence is false and show nothing to suggest that it is. You just type this guy is wrong, I have seen where he is proven right.

Show me that the people in his article who have claimed to know this is fake have recanted their what they said or it is proven they never said those things.

Thats all I'm asking, a little proof. And no I do not accept a 1960's polygraph as proof.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:01 PM
Excellent thread my friend Star and Flagged. While I do not think the Patterson footage is real, that is only my opinion, I do find the footage fascinating. And you have provided some of the top evidence for the argument that it is real. Great addition to the Crytpo board

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by fooffstarr

I also saw that episode and consider it the best Monster Quest episode yet. It focused on the physical evidence out there, and also had the best look at the Patterson footage yet.

The part of the film that really gets me is the breasts. I just do not see any hoaxer at the time of the film putting realistic breasts on the creature.

Thank you for the article, fooffstarr.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:49 PM
Thank you so much for posting.

Needless to say, the digital technology now available to more accurately analyze this footage in tremendous detail has come a very long way. I've been thinking more about the Patterson footage ever since the previous MQ episode in which they analyzed in detail the movement of the jaw and mouth. That combined with other details, such as the movement of muscle and the apparent herniated disc was completely extraordinary. Combined with this latest info, my question is what more proof do you need?

Indeed, this footage has come a long way. It has always amazed me, even back many years ago before the technology existed to examine this more closely, that people could so easily dismiss this footage. I am by no means an expert. However, when you look at this thing it just plain seems real. It never struck me as anything even remotely resembling a man in a gorilla suit. This perception does not stem from a desire to believe, as I have seem many other sasquatch related stories/photos that did seem fake. This always seemed to me the real deal.

It would appear the primary holdout argument among debunkers is the old standby that it must be fake because Patterson actually set out specifically to film Bigfoot- and he did! Therefore, it can't be true.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:49 PM
Very good post..S&F

I believe the patterson footage to be real, its not easy to get proof of

there existence, they are very elusive, and intelligent. I have had an

encounter here is the report of it on the B.F.R.O. website.

this is what I experienced.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
Just because the guy was into bigfoot does not make it impossible that he did actually find what he was looking for. I'm sure a lot of you believe UFO's exist, and I'm sure a lot of people close to you know that you believe in UFO's, so you better hope to God you never actually SEE one, because when you come running telling your story, nobody will believe you. "Oh Johnny is always going on about UFO's and now he says he saw one? What a goofball."

The chances of a UFO believer seeing a UFO compared to a non-believer have to be higher, because the guy that believes in UFOs is most likley going to be keeping an eye on the sky. Same thing applies to bigfoot.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Blender]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:56 PM
My real problem is not the issues of "what if its fake" but what would happen if Bigfoot is real. The number of curious who would suddenly invade their habitat to get a look could be more damaging then we imagine. I would rather the species stay in myth or known to a small few then to see one sitting in a zoo.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
no, it's a fake.

The fact that these "experts" claim otherwise merely proves that they DON'T know their stuff.

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in