Patterson Footage creature proven NOT a suit

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I think that is a real animal. She spooked 3 horses, I don't think a man in an ape suit would spook the horses.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Very good thread


I've always felt that the Patterson Footage seems fake because they just happened to be there with a camera and caught the thing on film. It could be really dumb luck. Either that, or they were scientific geniuses and came up with the best suit and best movement plans ever. If it's fake, they must have had such a grasp of the anatomy of what a bigfoot might look like that they nailed it.

But it's true, the shows take both sides. I have no idea which side is full of "disinfo" and I HOPE one day there will be a consensus on the issue. However, I can't imagine what evidence might surface in the future that we haven't already discovered. Perhaps there will be a way to analyze the film through a computer and look for more hints of editing, or really take a good look at the fur on the "suit/animal" or something.

We can only hope!



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Perhaps there will be a way to analyze the film through a computer and look for more hints of editing, or really take a good look at the fur on the "suit/animal" or something


Already done.

In the MQ episode I listed they verified there was no editing done to the film. It was a real film of a real creature.

Also, the fur was well explained by the special effects expert. At the time the video was made, the stretch fur that appears to have been used (IF it was a suit) was not even invented.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


I like to withhold my comments regarding the MonsterQuest program for reasons which I will probably write out in a thread someday. But alright, that makes sense.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
YUS FINALLY!

I kknew bigfoot was real
you are the man



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I swore to myself that I would never reply to another Patterson thread. But it hurts me seeing all these people buy into it.

Same argument I always had about the footage. What's in the video is not important, It is the guy that is holding the camera. I don't want hear about the muscle texture, how it walks, the real looking breast, etc. I don't care.

I am currently switching jobs, and one thing that the new employer ask is for a background check. You know, to make sure all my credentials line up. If you do a background search on Patterson you will find he was nothing but a con-man, only looking to make a quick buck in life.

If your buying into this story you might as well be interested into this Meier Raygun.

This is a officially alien raygun! Have anyone ever seen a alien raygun? Then how do you know that this is a fake? If you never seen one, look how real it looks with silvery texture, red ray gun death tip, and alumina foil arm protector. Please.

I am not debating if bigfoot is real or not. Personally I think all the eyewitness can't be wrong. But I don't think their any man/ape relative, but thats not the point.

My point is what was Patterson's real job? It was making bigfoot documentaries. It was reported that he faked prints in earlier documentaries. He purchased gorilla costumes. A guy said that he dressed up in a costume for him.
Besides the background history, the footage itself is sketchy. Recently people have been looking for bigfoot/yeti a lot more than they were 50 years ago. The technology has changed so much since then too. If we can't find one with a trail cam how I am I supposed to believe that Patterson went into the woods with the sole purpose of video taping a bigfoot with a video camera he purposely rented just for that purpose. I do not believe that Patterson was the best bigfoot hunter ever. He just went into the woods and Bigfoot just walk the cat walk in front him. Even gave a look too.

The creature is almost always nocturnal. Daylight accouters are brief in nature. Usually with the creature moving quick or aggressive after being spotted. But not Patterson's bigfoot, it was hopscotching through the woods. Even turned to smile.


But hey, if you want to believe that Patterson was one of the greatest biologist ever, go for it. I'll disagree.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


Just wanted to bump this great thread my friend. Keep up the great work in the this forum.


So I stay somewhat on topic........After viewing this EXCELLENT thread I have to say I am heavily in FAVOR of the Patterson footage being real, but I am no crypto expert.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


So... I totally missed the part there where you disproved my OP?

Oh wait, you didn't.

Nevermind.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


To all the naysayers on this thread. How do you refute the eye witness reports that some people on here have had. Bad eye sight? Must have imagined it?

People are SEEING these things, so it's just the icing on the cake so to speak that the footage is CONFIRMING that these creatures are real.

Here in country Eastern Australia everyone knows someone who has had a first hand experience, especially if you're interested in the topic.

By the way fooffstarr I would like to read an account of your sighting. If you don't want to post it here can you u2u me? I know in another thread that you said click on the link in your signature but I can't seem to access the link.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by heffo7
 


This link is my account, but it follows on into a long waffle about history and ethics so If you just want to read my bit it is fairly easy to cut out at the start.

This one was photos I took not long ago of the area in which the events in the first link happened.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


There are many daytime sightings of Sasquatch reported each year. Some of the best ones come from experienced hunters.

In the footage, the female Bigfoot in question does just that: walks through the forest without stopping. Yes, she did look at the persons filming her, but she just kept going.

No one is claiming Patterson to be a biologist or a saint. The man lucked out and got some incredible footage of a Sasquatch. Just like most of the award winning photos seen, he got lucky at the right time in the right place.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


How cant you even think that that picture and story of a lazer gun would even hold up as a counter to this story? Its totally unrelated.

First, as you said, we dont know what an 'alien Lazer Gun' would look like. We would have no idea the scale, the features, the structure, or the characteristics of said "alien lazer gun".

On the other hand, we have a pretty good idea of primate kinetics versus human kinetics that we can use to compare the facts. Given that we know the distances and size of film, we can also draw up conclusions as to the size of the subject and compare with human structures. We also have a date, and known materials that could have been used, and not used to make a suit, ruling out certain suits conclusively, leaving only the uninvented (stretch fur).

I could go on, but you get the point. Your argument holds no water. Where as the facts shown in this thread, and that T.V. show, and other peoples work. Not to mention the hundreds of sightings over the last 50 years by legit people, show with a pretty good amount of evidence, that there is more to the video than meets skeptics eyes at first.

His credentials and slight character flaws in relation to the event are a problem. But it has yet to be proven (that I know of) that materials on hand to create the video had yet to be in existence at the time of the video. Unless you can show me that info.

Whats also interesting is Mr. Bob Hieronimus who said he was in the suit couldnt get the story straight on where Patterson was while filming the video, saying Patterson was on his horse to National Geographic, when in fact its been shown that Patterson was on foot while filming being tossed off the horse as it was scared enough to rear back and toss Patterson off. One would think that the detail of the horses falling backwards apon seeing Mr. Bob Hieronimus in a suit would be a detail that you would remember and not brush off. Especially, as he claims, it was his horse that Patterson was riding.
www.bigfootencounters.com...

Well, that my 2 cents.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by MrSmith]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
About two weeks ago on our local news station there was a report of two ladies driving the Nowendoc road at night that saw one by the side of the road. Frightened them a treat and they drove past. After a bit they pulled over and discussed what they had seen. One of them said that they had a phone with camera capability and they debated whether to go back and try to get a picture. The question hung between them for about two seconds, before they both went "Nah".

By the way, if my geography is correct (and I'm a bit further north than Nowendoc) this road links Walcha and Gloucester. Making this area a bit further south than Kempsey, which has been previously mentioned.

Foof, this is still in your neck of the woods! Fantastic that it made the news.

My point though is regarding getting photos of them. You are so scared that the last thing you are gonna do is turn around with your 1.3 mega pixel camera at night to confront an 8 foot hairy giant just to prove your story.

Hats off to the ladies though for having the courage to go to the media. And YES they were ridiculed. Surprise! Surprise!



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by heffo7
 


I can totally understand not going back.

I know people have said the same thing to me. "Oh, you boys would have had camera phones. Why didn't you get any pictures"?

Simply put: We didn't want to die. I consider my health and physical safety more important than getting a what would be horrible quality inconclusive photo of something like this.

I applaud these women for coming forward with their story, even in the face of ridicule. I spent a long time after my experience being frustrated with my friends and family for not believing me. I would go to huge lengths to harass them with history and sighting reports trying to sway their opinion.

I realize now more than ever (and I hope these women do too) that it doesn't matter who believes your story and who doesn't. You know yourself what happened and that should be enough.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


Oh, I forgot to mention there was a follow up report a couple of nights later with ... guess who... Rex Gilroy as the expert.

The ladies took him back to the spot and he found a footprint on the other side of the road to the sighting and about 200 yards along. He then deduced that there were two yowies.

Of course there were. Cause it couldn't be one just moving around could it?

Rex's logic leaves a lot to be desired sometimes. But to give credit where it's due he is the reason that I became interested in yowies in the first place. About 25 years ago in our local newspaper he reported a sighting from way back in the early 1900's when settlers were just entering the area. A small girl (about 3 years old I think) disappeared from a clearing at Torrington. A search was launched for her and eventually they found her about one mile away but about two yards up a cliff face on a ledge. The searchers said there is no way she could have reached that ledge herself. When they asked the girl how she came to be there, she replied "The big hairy man put me here".

That's very close to where I grew up and there were too many reports coming from the general area to dismiss. Once you start talking to people and showing that you're open to the possibility, it's amazing the number of people who have had sightings.

I'd say 10,000 sightings is wildly conservative as I personally know one fellow who has had four separate encounters. Didn't believe in them either until he saw the first one. Now he actively tries to photograph them using trail cams and laying food out that need dexterous hand ability to open. The food gets unwrapped but he can't get anything on the cameras that's conclusive. I personally believe that they have a superior range of vision to us and can see Infra Red, tipping them off about the cameras.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by heffo7
 


I feel sorry for Rex sometimes. He tries very hard, and I think he is 100% committed to what he does, but he tends to make some huge leaps in logic that really aren't behooving of his experience.

Thats why I follow Dean Harrison and his group more closely these days. His team are (as far as I know) the only ones to actually get a photograph of a Yowie while out on expedition. It is a horrible photo, but better than nothing.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


Yes I agree, Dean and his team are out on their own as far as crypto field research and reporting goes. I regularly read the sightings pages at www.yowiehunters.com and like to read the forum pages too so I can keep up with what's been happening on expeditions.

The photo link you posted earlier looks familiar.

That expedition about six months ago which resulted in Dean gettting "mugged" for want of a better word could have gone better. If you're a regular at that site I'm sure you'll know what I mean.

Hats off to Australian Yowie Research (AYR) though they do a fantastic job!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by testrat
I swore to myself that I would never reply to another Patterson thread. But it hurts me seeing all these people buy into it.

Same argument I always had about the footage. What's in the video is not important, It is the guy that is holding the camera. I don't want hear about the muscle texture, how it walks, the real looking breast, etc. I don't care.

I am currently switching jobs, and one thing that the new employer ask is for a background check. You know, to make sure all my credentials line up. If you do a background search on Patterson you will find he was nothing but a con-man, only looking to make a quick buck in life.

If your buying into this story you might as well be interested into this Meier Raygun.

This is a officially alien raygun! Have anyone ever seen a alien raygun? Then how do you know that this is a fake? If you never seen one, look how real it looks with silvery texture, red ray gun death tip, and alumina foil arm protector. Please.

I am not debating if bigfoot is real or not. Personally I think all the eyewitness can't be wrong. But I don't think their any man/ape relative, but thats not the point.

My point is what was Patterson's real job? It was making bigfoot documentaries. It was reported that he faked prints in earlier documentaries. He purchased gorilla costumes. A guy said that he dressed up in a costume for him.
Besides the background history, the footage itself is sketchy. Recently people have been looking for bigfoot/yeti a lot more than they were 50 years ago. The technology has changed so much since then too. If we can't find one with a trail cam how I am I supposed to believe that Patterson went into the woods with the sole purpose of video taping a bigfoot with a video camera he purposely rented just for that purpose. I do not believe that Patterson was the best bigfoot hunter ever. He just went into the woods and Bigfoot just walk the cat walk in front him. Even gave a look too.

The creature is almost always nocturnal. Daylight accouters are brief in nature. Usually with the creature moving quick or aggressive after being spotted. But not Patterson's bigfoot, it was hopscotching through the woods. Even turned to smile.


But hey, if you want to believe that Patterson was one of the greatest biologist ever, go for it. I'll disagree.


ok, so let me get this straight. according to you, it doesnt matter how many experts (yes i understand i need to use the term somewhat loosely) verify the authenticity of the film, the authenticity of the creature ON the film, it cant possibly be real because the guy has a bad reputation? what does his (potential) bad rep have to do with the creature on the film? i dont care if his main job was making bigfoot documentaries. i dont care if he had gorilla suits and faked tracks. THIS particular piece of footage has been studied and analyzed and it has been explained that it could not have been faked by a human in a suit.

So, if you maintain that he was a fake and this is a suit...what may i ask do you think is occupying the suit if not a human person? Perhaps an alien?...as i see you are so fond of them. This footage is still after all these years absolutely remarkable!


fooffstarr, i thoroughly enjoyed your OP. Thank You!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilishlyangelic23

So, if you maintain that he was a fake and this is a suit...what may i ask do you think is occupying the suit if not a human person? Perhaps an alien?...as i see you are so fond of them. This footage is still after all these years absolutely remarkable!


fooffstarr, i thoroughly enjoyed your OP. Thank You!


I think Bob Heironimus the guy who admitted he was wearing the suit was in it.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


Why doesn't he produce the suit he allegedly wore? If he wants people to believe he wore the suit, he should show the suit he wore during the film.

To this date, no one has accurately reproduced the Patterson film.




new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join