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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Helmkat

I hardly think if they are real there are any more living. I would bet they died off or are so minimal in population they are close to extinction. I mean the US wilderness areas that exist are vast and wide but there are hardly ANY areas that have not been traversed by man in some form or another. I.e.. military, aircraft, satellite, backpackers, hunters, offroaders etc. But then again there are some pretty remote areas that these things could live. What if they live underground and only surface at night? Makes sense. Who knows. I do believe the Patterson footage is real. If it was a costume there's no way in hell there would have been only one and there's no way in hell the costume would have disappeared. No way! It would have turned up sooner or later. The costumes that people have claimed were used in the video were hardly accurate nor realistic looking. Plus this was back in the 60s.

And to the other poster you must BE BLIND! The FIRST thing I noticed in the video when I watched it years ago were the big bouncy breasts. HOW IN THE HELL can you miss them? They are OBVIOUS! Why the hell would someone build a costumer which that type of detail when it was completely unnecessary???????? The more I've researched this subject the skeptics increasingly look like fools and have no solid arguments as to it being faked.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by eniac

haha and you do Mr. bigshot? Please grace all with your expert analysis as to why it's fake? Where is the origianl suit? You don't think after almost 50 years after being one of the BIGGEST hoaxes in history some sort of suit would surface? Come on! You have no solid argument just your simple minded uninformed, hardly expert opinion.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:24 PM
I've got to admit, I am a skeptic on most things unexplained but on the Bigfoot/Sasquatch issue I think it is reasonable to think that there may be a North American ape-like creature living in our wilderness areas. I know in Washington state we have thousands of miles of forest area that likely has never been touched by humans. One argument for Bigfoot that I heard somewhere years ago is that in Washington, we have dozens (or hundreds?) of airplanes that have crashed in the forest and we can't find them. These are large, immobile, shiny objects that we can't find and many of them we were looking for - yet we think that since we can't find a 7 foot dark colored ape-like creature that doesn't want to be found that he doesn't exist?

As for the Patterson video and the obvious bouncing breasts and muscles moving under the skin, I found the following site some years back that enhanced the video in places and I believe it to be rather compelling:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
You missed one big revelation for me on that episode, which was the overlay map of the US. It showed dots all across the US of known Bigfoot sightings, and then they overlayed a map of the areas in the US with the heaviest precip. It, to me, conclusively proves that there is something to the bigfoot story, considering how well the maps matched. The bigfoot populations would need to live in areas of regular rainfall, just like apes. The map shows the sightings match almost perfectly with areas of higher precip. To take two totally different facts like that, and put them together, is very strong evidence of bigfoots exsistance.

If anyone could find that overlay, and post it, youd all see what I mean.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by eniac
no, it's a fake.

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

I suppose you DO know your stuff, more than any "experts" would right?

Confidence in your own opinion is a good thing, however TOO much confidence can be a fault.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:44 PM
Thanks for all the replies.

All I will say to the skeptics is please prove me wrong. If you can refute the points in my OP than by all means please present your research. If not, then it is far from scientific to put your head in the sand and go 'la la la la la la' because your preconceived notions of truth do not gel with the new findings.

reply to post by treemanx

Good point, and I only failed to mention it because it was not directly related to 'Patty'. Although after you posted I did remember they stated that the highest concentration of sightings were focused pretty much perfectly around the Blue Mountains and Bluff Creek.

The red dots indicate reported Sasquatch sightings. The colours represent average annual rainfall. The brighter blue, the more rain. Orange and red represent extremely dry areas.

Note in the eastern US how the sightings nearly stop perfectly on the border of the rainfall area. Also note that in the west the huge cluster of sightings I mentioned above are all confined within the 'blue zone' on the coast in the north.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:52 PM
Excellent thread and S&F for you. Having seen a Bigfoot with my own eyes I know for a fact they exist. I can't prove it, but I don't feel the need to either.

Bigfoot is not something you will, or should, believe in until you've seen one for yourself. Once that happens, you'll never doubt again.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by mrwupy
Excellent thread and S&F for you. Having seen a Bigfoot with my own eyes I know for a fact they exist. I can't prove it, but I don't feel the need to either.

Bigfoot is not something you will, or should, believe in until you've seen one for yourself. Once that happens, you'll never doubt again.

Seeing is indeed believing.

I know how it is mate, I've seen one too
Problem is, my own family still doesn't believe me and it is horribly frustrating.

That is where this kind of stuff comes in. They are slowly coming around.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:14 PM
Wow, excellent thread! Thanks for the work in putting all of this together for us. I greatly appreciate it. For awhile, I remained skeptical about the footage...but, over time, more evidence and common sense seemed to direct me to believing that it is authentic... However, I'd need to see one for myself to believe it fully.

It is foolish to believe that all of these sightings are just "made-up"...there's got to be something to it.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:23 PM
This Monsterquest episode restated some of the information from Dr Jeff Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch; Legend meets Science"

I've long thought the mid-tarsal break evidence to be the most compelling argument for Bigfoot's reality.

As for the Patterson film, it's either real, or among the greatest forgeries of all time, right up there with the Shroud of Turin. If it's a forgery, it's brilliant.

The film cannot be "proven" real. It's very difficult to prove a negative, the negative in this case being that the film is not faked. No matter how much evidence is presented for it's veracity, there will always be doubters.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by jd140

Good post – I saw the show and was impressed at the way they analyzed and examined the evidence.

Jd140, I'd suggest you look at the evidence too, especially the evidence sited in the article you linked. Look at the footprint that was photographed by a 3rd party. The author claims that it is “identical to a human foot print.” EXCEPT he completely ignores the mid- tarsal break (which would allow the soil to be untouched) and claims that this section of the print was probably compressed and then sucked back up again?? In my admittedly unscientific look at the photo, I note the same texture across the middle of the print as the soil around the print, including the broken weeds/twigs. Very unlikely that Patterson had this knowledge of non-human primate biology so many years before all others.

I also would wonder if your cited article is admitting the Yeti print to be real? The writer seems to believe that the because the bigfoot print does not match it, and that somehow proves that the bigfoot print is not real. That argument won't hold up in the court of reason, law or science.

Now as for the “suit”, are you really sure a “Hollywood” rumor is the basis for debunking the footage? The Patterson film's “suit” is far better than what was used for the Planet of the Apes and simply could not have been made at that time with the then current technology. Additionally, the bio-mechanical limitations shown in the Monster Quest show weigh heavily in the favor of authenticity. And where is Chamber's on the record statement taking credit or not?

In terms of the people “who have claimed to know this is fake have recanted their what they said or it is proven they never said those things,” sounds a bit like “the friend of a friend that knows someone who says” . . . Remember that Patterson is from a real hayseed town, where 15 minutes of fame make you a celebrity for life – sure the same can be said of Patterson himself, but these folks would not be allowed into a courtroom in any state I know of.

In all, the evidence points to the film as too difficult or simply not possible to create or hoax given the technology of the time.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by tallcool1

Excellent site - I had one of the gifs before, but did not know where they were from.

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by mrwupy
Excellent thread and S&F for you. Having seen a Bigfoot with my own eyes I know for a fact they exist. I can't prove it, but I don't feel the need to either.

Bigfoot is not something you will, or should, believe in until you've seen one for yourself. Once that happens, you'll never doubt again.


My parents visited me from South Africa recently... and we trailed the Niagara area. My mother asked me if we have "baboons" here - like we do in SA. I told her it was impossible! There are no "baboons' here.

THEN she told me, "I just saw a large baboon walking through the bushes there".

Scared the crap out of me, as I was "dispensing liquid" from my body when she saw this "baboon"!

When I asked her what she saw, she told me that it was a large "Baboon", walking on his hind legs, and that he seemed to be lost!

Man, do I believe in the Sasquatch here in Canada now!

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:47 PM
s&f fo sho. i remember coming home from school one mom
was so excited. she called me into the living room. there on the t.v.
was Paterson, and Gimlin ,on the Art Linkletter show. the whole show
was centered around this film. never could understand how this film
could even have any skeptics. the fact that all these yrs later, there
hasn't been another one. that says alot, for what a fluke it was to
catch this thing on film. not to mention the elusiveness of the species.
is that not a nervous walk or what? i mean at least very hurried.
like she's thinking , oh hell, Patty! why? why you stay out past sunrise?
ok! oooohk Patty don't run . juuust walk fast, Patty. ok Patty,just one look Patty. yep ok. they definetly see Patty. keep walking Patty.
that nervous walk is tell tale for sure.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by randyvs


There are NO baboons in Canada (except zoos), YET my Mom saw this "Baboon" in a little town called Jordan! She honestly thought she saw a "baboon" - as would any South African trying to relate to the situation. What the hell else could she compare it with?

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by TortoiseKweek
i hear you man, makes perfrect sense to me. i,ve never had an encounter w/ one of these things and i know, i don't want one.
seen ufos on three dfiferent occassions. they don't bother me at all.
i'm sure if i saw one of these things up close ,cutting thru the toolies .
i'd be dealing w/ excrement . don't cha know?
that's funny "oh btw i didn't know you had baboons running about".
in passing.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by randyvs


You're too funny my friend! No, I was just passing some liquid through the earth's filter - no other excrement - I promise you! However, had I seen this "baboon" my Mom had seen, it may have been a different story. Hell, I might not have seen Niagara falls in the same way again!

We don't have baboons running around like 'apes'
in JHB, SA, but there are parts in the country that do - Cape Town for 1! My mother was brought up in a family that went hunting, etc. My grandfather took her to the Kruger Park almost every 2nd weekend when she was My Mom knows animals, and baboons probably better than any1 here!

In fact, she was bit by a monkey when she was young, when the bugger crept into my grandad's landrover in the KNP, and bit her! Trust me, if any1 can identify a "Baboon", it's my Mom!

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:28 PM
I have never actually seen one, but my stepfather, and also a good friend of mine who owns and operates his own business has. They are both very credible people, neither of whom has ever tried to sell their story for any profit. I would believe that bigfoot was real based soley on their experiences, if there wasnt so much other compelling evidence to support it. To me, that overlay map of the US is pretty amazing proof that there is something to the sightings.

Problem is, if there was a breeding population of bigfoot in the US, I dont understand why we havent found a body yet. It's possible that, as they are going to be on the top of the food chain in the wilderness, that these creatures would only be dying of disease, age or accident. Which would definately make the chances less to stumble upon one while hiking. Have any of you ever come across the body of a mountain lion in the woods? I have spent alot of time in the woods in my life, and have never come across one. (And I live in Oregon, pretty much smack in the middle of an area with tons of reported sightings of Bigfoot. We also have huge populations of mountain lion.)

As far as the Patterson footage, it seems like there are credible theories coming from either side of the arguement. There is a man in Texas or Arizona who claims to be the man in the suit, who has the same gait of the creature, and is locally known as being the guy. Then there is the arguement that the creature in the video couldnt be just a man in a suit, considering the how real it looked. That it couldnt be a monkey suit, because you can see details like muscle movement and facial expression.

It is very interesting indeed, unfortunately there will likely never be any real resolution to it. I for one, believe it's real. Having credible people in my life who have seen these things, and that I trust, lets me know that there is something being seen out there that is beyond our current knowledge.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by treemanx]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by treemanx

The 'man in a suit' issue can be put to bed entirely with the new, accurate measurements.

If it is possible to find out the height (or at least approximate height) of the alleged suit wearer, you can quickly figure out of it was physically possible.

The creature in the video is between 7ft 2 and 7ft 6. As stated in the OP, for it to be able to walk over objects and turn to look at the camera, a person inside a suit would have to be tall enough to look out the eye sockets. Problem is, if someone in this particular creature was looking out those sockets, their head would not fit in the shape we see in the video.

All this is moot however, if the suit wearer in question is any less than 6ft or more tall. If he is any shorter than that his eyes wouldn't even be high enough to see out any holes that were made in the neck of the costume. And with the large bulky chest region and the breasts lower there would be no chance of turning the head how it does because the wearer's entire head would be down in the neck.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by fooffstarr]

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by fooffstarr

That was one thing about the guy who claims to be "the man in the suit". He was pretty dang short. With this new evidence of the proportions of the target in the video, it definately seems to be debunked that it was a man inside suit.

Another question I have always had about this, is the absolute undeniable dumb luck these two cowboys had in getting the footage. That right there is almost enough for me to believe it was contrived. Patterson and his buddy travel all the way down to Cali to film a bigfoot video. And then they "happen" to do just that? In spectacular fashion? It just reeks of a hoax, so I can see why there are so many disbelievers on this out there.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by treemanx]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in