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.

 

Bigfoot Patterson Footage Analysed

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Saw this last night. Very interesting to say the least

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Shino]




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Shino
 
Interesting video. Until a thread by Gemwolf, logic has always dictated that Bigfoots don't exist IMO. I'm now more open-minded to the possibility. This video doesn't make me more or less open to the idea.

On the one hand, it adds details to the interpretation of the footage. It suggests that the figure's face is more realistic than a hoaxer would ever have attempted to achieve. The movement of the mouth and jaw muscles appear consistent with primates.

On the other hand, there are dozens of videos involving the highlighting of contours to demonstrate what that person sees. Moon and Mars videos show spaceports, critters, craft and buildings that aren't really there. The History channel is also prepared to air any old crap with a serious voiced narrator. This is compounded by the 'talking head' Dr Swindler being dead for some 2 odd years.

It's a new YT video and perhaps the show aired last night, but the doco is at least two years old. Folk will see in it whatever makes them happy. For my penny, it doesn't alter anything


Other thread by Gemwolf is...here. One of my Top 10 ATS Threads because it changed my opinion by the end






[edit on 8-9-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Thanks for posting.
I did my own comparison and created an animated gif for a previous thread.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Sadly, I can't watch the video because my internet is capped, so I'll bookmark it for when my 'net resets.

In the meantime, you might like to have a read of my recent topic Patterson Footage creature proven NOT a hoax. Seems to be a similar type of thing to this video by the sounds of it.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
It is fake, you can see the guy's white noes and his eyes and the rectangular opening they show thru.
I do believe that these creatures exist and the suspect is the allegedly extinct Neanthal Man.
This just isn't him/her.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

It is fake, you can see the guy's white nose and his eyes and the rectangular opening they show thru.


Sorry, but that's your imagination running away with you. There is no evidence of any "openings" whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
It is fake, you can see the guy's white noes and his eyes and the rectangular opening they show thru.
I do believe that these creatures exist and the suspect is the allegedly extinct Neanthal Man.
This just isn't him/her.


Can't agree with this at all. I dont see any "rectangular opening" at all, I can kinda of see what you're referring to, but if you look again if this was the case the guy's nose would be sbug against the bottom of this "opening" and considering this is a brown suit/white guy (in your argument) it would be much more visible, even on an old 16mm film, it would show more clearly. Also that would be one big human nose!


SLAYER69's gif is quality and really shows what we may well be seeing.

For the record, I always have been, and still am, undecided about this footage, so I'm not protecting it for no reason - I just think you're seeing things that aren't there in this case.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Nice! I've never seen that one.


Re-analyzing the footage? What is this...4 times now? Sheesh.
All I can say is this:
If it was a hoax, it was done with hollywood-ish money.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I believe the guys analyzing the "microscopic" detail are seeing what they want to see. First of all, the bigfoot researcher is obviously biased and cannot be objective. Then the other "expert" says he can see the eye lids move. WHAT !

IMHO, this digital analysis isn't anymore conclusive than the original film



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by venividivici
 


Then can you provide us with your own analysis?

If you feel so strongly against it then please provide us with your own evidence that it's a hoax. I'll be very interested in seeing what you come up with to disprove the only concrete evidence that has not been proven a fallacy.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
In a very recent documentary, last couple of months, the film makers interviewed a man who has been making animal suits for hollywood, for quite some time.
In his opinion its not a suit for several reasons,
the most compelling is that you couldnt fit a human head into the suit's proportions.
And that a human even if they were tall enough just couldnt fit into the proportions of the suit.

Another being there was no "fur" fabric available, at the time the film was made, that would give the suit its look while moving.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


Without a link to more evidence. That's like saying I knows somebody who knows somebody who states that it's fake!


Yadda yadda blah blah blah...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by venividivici
 


Then can you provide us with your own analysis?

If you feel so strongly against it then please provide us with your own evidence that it's a hoax. I'll be very interested in seeing what you come up with to disprove the only concrete evidence that has not been proven a fallacy.


I never said the Patterson film is a hoax. I just said this particular analysis is unconvincing. The Patterson film is fascinating even after all these years.

I will give the researcher credit for making the point that if it was a hoax and the film makers knew (at the time) nobody would be able to make out any finite details on film, then after 40 years we are able to digitize and zoom in on certain aspects and not find any tell-tale signs of a mask or ape suit, then the hoaxers were certainly ahead of their time.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I used to be a semisceptic on this subject till I had my own personal experience.
I witnessed a track of foot prints just minutes after they were laid down, and heard the animal that made them moving through the brush.

Given where we were at the dinkey lakes wilderness, a hoax is not likely, the area is very remote and has a history of sightings going back 40 years for modern man, and centuries in native american lore.
Pictographs of "the hairy man" on a reservation in the nearby foothills at Painted rock






The local tribes have many names for BF, the tule river band calls him mayak datat.
The miwuk call him yayali

[edit on 9-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

It was this episode of monster quest



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The pic is 2 frames.
Save it to your photo program and look at it still.

You can see the eye opening is very square at the outside edge. The top edge covers his eyebrows and then some, and runs straight across. Do you think she shaved it square like that? And the nose is not that big. Just normal for a big guy. He has a beard.

As to fake fur. Why would it have to be fake? Don't you think real fur could have been used?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 
Hiya Punkinworks,
Your account is the kind of thing that changed my mind. Logically, I can't imagine how a great big critter can remain so elusive for decades. No s***, no bones, no corpses, no roadkill, no nests, no young, no stillbirths etc.

When I started reading about the accounts from witnesses, it seems improbable that every witness is a BSer, hoaxer or idiot. Most maybe, but ALL is unlikely. In that thread I linked earlier, I posted about a cast of footprints that showed a foot deformity. The prints showed a bias of weight distribution to allow for a limp.

I'm not convinced that there are bigfoots out there...but I'm not convinced they aren't out there. Have a look at this link...interesting...Sasquatch: Size, Scaling, and Statistics



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The comparison video you did still is one of the best I have ever seen. It is hard to not conclude that the creature in the Patterson Film is an unknown hominid.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Bigfoot, I love this topic.

Some facts about Bigfoot, in no particular order, which are all related nonetheless.

1) Bigfoot are an endangered species and must be elusive for that reason.
2) They wont be found unles if its meant to be found.
3) Most people who have seen bigfoot have had a close encounter that was erased but they just dont know how lucky they were.
4) Bigfoot are not related to humans.
5) Live in ships, underground, surface, and in space stations above Mars.
6) Sasquatch - Martians
7) Cannot travel between dimensions
8) The ships that they are on travel between the planets are tagged and monitored (by god knows who).
9) Only a select few are allowed to come to Earth though
10) They probably think humans smell
11) They throw rocks as warnings, but the other alternative is much worse
12) Fur coats = chillider on Mars
13) Probably work for the maintenance department when the war was lost on Mars



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join