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.

 

Press conference just announced that will show the most convincing bigfoot evidence to date.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Do you have a credible source for that statement? I've seen several analyses that suggest the opposite of your claim. Like the fact that the Bigfoot in the Patterson footage was female (you can see the breasts move) and the lump on one of its legs.


No, he doesn't...

2nd line




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   


We have an full upper body impression including half of its face On the passenger side window of a pickup truck And on the drivers side window, the Nostrils, Nose and Lips of a Bigfoot

What does this actually mean? They have half a clay figure, and some spots on the side of a truck door?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
The thing about the search for Bigfoot, that seems odd to me is. We obviously have film footage of one in
the Patterson film. ( I can't believe some still believe it was a hoax) Some pretty nice clean footage there.
Even though scientifically they've proved that the image in the Patterson footage can only be a creature.
Not a man in a suit. Science dosn't consider the Patterson film proof.

Mainly science still rejects Bigfoot. So expeditions go out after more evidence. What kind ? More pictures.
Trail cams. I don't think pics are gonna do it or car door impressions. Nothing but a dead carcass that they
can dissect. And that may never come.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
The thing about the search for Bigfoot, that seems odd to me is. We obviously have film footage of one in
the Patterson film. ( I can't believe some still believe it was a hoax) Some pretty nice clean footage there.
Even though scientifically they've proved that the image in the Patterson footage can only be a creature.
Not a man in a suit. Science dosn't consider the Patterson film proof.

Mainly science still rejects Bigfoot. So expeditions go out after more evidence. What kind ? More pictures.
Trail cams. I don't think pics are gonna do it or car door impressions. Nothing but a dead carcass that they
can dissect. And that may never come.


As far as i know, a few people have come forward claiming this to be a hoax, and involved in it.




Philip MorrisIn 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980s but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT-AM.[48] Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable.[49]

Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank"[50] (ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive"[51] and the "arms longer."[52] Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His assertion was also printed in the Charlotte Observer.[53]

As for the creature's walk, Morris said:

The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.[54]

Morris' wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit.[54] Morris offered no evidence apart from testimony to support his account.

[edit] Bob HeironimusBob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film, and his allegations are detailed in Long's book. Heironimus was a tall (6' 2), muscular Yakima, Washington native, age 26, when he says Patterson offered him $1000 to wear an ape suit for a Bigfoot film. Bob Gimlin was on Bob Heironimus's horse, Chico, when the PGF was being filmed. Herionimus is one of numerous people who are claimed to be visible in an unreleased second reel of the film. It is unclear which if any of these claims is authentic.[citation needed]

Eventually Long uncovered testimony that corroborates Heironimus's claims: Russ Bohannon, a longtime friend, says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969.[55] Heironimus says he did not publicly discuss his role in the hoax because he hoped to be repaid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax that he could not be held accountable. In separate incidents, Bernard Hammermeister and Heironimus's relatives (mother Opal and nephew John Miller) claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus' car. The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot.[56] No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it."[57]

Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing ape suits that are in many respects quite different from one another; Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume, and offers colloborative evidence and testimony to support this idea. Among the notable differences are:

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[58]
Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".[59]
Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt."[60] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top."[61] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back, and into which one stepped.[62]
Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea.
Heironimus' statements about the multiple pieces and upper torso part is promoted by "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" a video study of M. K. Davis' enhancement about how the costume is put together. He made the comment that he wore football shoulder pads which, according to Heironimus, explains why the shoulders and arms appear to be out of proportion to the rest of the body. The zipper of the suit was in front and could not have been seen from the back. The position of the zipper would raise a question about Morris' participation or his recollection.

Some skeptics say that Heironimus' arms are too short to match that of a bigfoot and that he was about a few inches shorter than the creature on the film but "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" explains that the relative position of the elbows and hips are those of a human. Some have speculated that bigfoot appeared to be about six foot seven and Heironimus was only six foot two. Heronimous was not as bulky as the creature but a suit would prohibit a reasonable comparison. It should be noted however that one person involved in the PGF denies Heironumus was in any way involved with the filming of the PGF


en.wikipedia.org...

Im not saying its a hoax 100%, but it def is not proof, considering there is a chance it was faked. We need 100% evidence that bigfoot is real. Not evidence that could be a man in a suit.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I saw this released on one of the bigfoot FB pages. Not very convincing sadly. I think its possible there is a "bigfoot" species out there, we had one in east tn a few years ago that I went along and searched for actively. We saw enough signs to rule out hoax or bear, but not enough to prove anything other then the eyewitness reports.

Probably 99% of Americans cant follow a trail, or tracks, or do anything in the woods except make noise and destroy it. They also can't tell the difference between a bear or a dear or anything else in the woods.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by Yfactor1980
What a coincidence, Bigfoot researchers are the ones who discovered it. That right there pretty much confirms it's a hoax. People looking for something will eventually find it. Even if it's something totally different.

That is a silly way to look at it.

Here is an example. Let's say that you and me are both walking through the woods. You are just casually looking forward, off in the distance. I am looking down at the ground directly in front of me with each step that I take. I am looking for mushrooms.

Which of us has better odds of finding a mushroom?
you or me?

Unless of course there're no mushrooms and it's the crackers looking for them...

We've seen the same sh** for 100 years or so, it gets to become predictable. If bigfoot were real as they say then we would know - all of the believers looking for him, ya' know.

Just trying to bring some reason to the table, if you want some.
edit on 21-6-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 





Eventually Long uncovered testimony that corroborates Heironimus's claims: Russ Bohannon, a longtime friend, says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969.


And he kept also quiet? Not very likely and if Heironimus told one person, it's likely to assume that he has told more people. And they all kept quiet even though this went around the world?
I think that this is an attempt to debunk the Patterson footage.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Which of us has better odds of finding a mushroom?
you or me?

Unless of course there're no mushrooms and it's the crackers looking for them...
Just trying to bring some reason to the table, if you want some.

I have no problems with reason, as long as it is used reasonably.
The question that I asked was~> "Which of us has better odds?"

You jumped right over the answer, and dove straight into an excuse.
In my reality, that is not a reasonable response.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Do you not see that this completely trumps some redneck claiming he was in a suit.
I'm not just going to let you ignore what science has proven.




Even though scientifically they've proved that the image in the Patterson footage can only be a creature.
Not a man in a suit.


Science has analyzed the footage Fx people from Hollywood say it's unlike anything they've ever seen. They've all come to the conclusion it couldn't be a man in a suit. But one redneck says boo and that's it case closed.
Have it your way.

Who knows what agenda the guy has? Prolly dosn't want his area over ran by Bigfoot hunters. Think Scooby Doo.

edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I wonder how many here would say, a creature like this has never existed ?
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Interesting but I have to admit I am slightly confused by this soon to be announced announcement.

What was bigfoot doing? Was he peering into the car to see them while they sat there or did they come back to the vehicle to find the impression?

If they came back to find the impression my money is on a bird print that splatted against the window.

If they were sat in the vehicle when bigfoot pressed his face up against the window then why didn't they take a picture of him? Im sure they would of been armed with cameras etc on a hunt for bigfoot....

Colour me sceptical but my money is on a bird print or similar at this moment in time....



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Versa
 


I wonder what your reaction will be if you actually were scavenging the woods for Bigfoot and suddenly he stands in front of you looking everything but friendly. Would you be able to take a picture?
I would run as hell!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Versa
 


I wonder what your reaction will be if you actually were scavenging the woods for Bigfoot and suddenly he stands in front of you looking everything but friendly. Would you be able to take a picture?
I would run as hell!


If I was a dedicated researcher of bigfoot??? Pretty sure I'd be able to gather my wits together in time to take a pic of him gallomping off into the woods.... My camera would be round my neck and after I'd finished screaming and bigfoot started off my camera would be up clicking away.... Its a big deal, if your looking for bigfoot and he screams at you through the car window your going to be trying to get a shot...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 





And he kept also quiet? Not very likely and if Heironimus told one person, it's likely to assume that he has told more people. And they all kept quiet even though this went around the world?


Well, until we have 100%, then people are always going to question stuff that can be questioned. Im not saying it is a hoax. Im saying there is not enough evidence out there to prove that the footage, or bigfoot is real. Saying that, i find the scientific community very ignorant, just like they are in the ufo field. And its hard to get to the bottom of anything with these kind of people.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Do you not see that this completely trumps some redneck claiming he was in a suit.
I'm not just going to let you ignore what science has proven.




Even though scientifically they've proved that the image in the Patterson footage can only be a creature.
Not a man in a suit.


Science has analyzed the footage Fx people from Hollywood say it's unlike anything they've ever seen. They've all come to the conclusion it couldn't be a man in a suit. But one redneck says boo and that's it case closed.
Have it your way.

Who knows what agenda the guy has? Prolly dosn't want his area over ran by Bigfoot hunters. Think Scooby Doo.

edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I wonder how many here would say, a creature like this has never existed ?
edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




edit on 21-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


And there have also been "experts that have said its a suit. This is not concrete evidence. Im not saying this is not bigfoot, but i need more proof. At the end of the day, no matter what you say, this could very well be a man in a suit.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Regenstorm
I wonder what your reaction will be if you actually were scavenging the woods for Bigfoot and suddenly he stands in front of you looking everything but friendly. Would you be able to take a picture? I would run as hell!


If I was a dedicated researcher of bigfoot??? Pretty sure I'd be able to gather my wits together in time to take a pic of him gallomping off into the woods.... My camera would be round my neck and after I'd finished screaming and bigfoot started off my camera would be up clicking away....

[color=CFECEC]Its a big deal, if your looking for bigfoot and he screams at you through the car window your going to be trying to get a shot...
[color=CFECEC].........trying to get a shot............out of your tranquilizer gun and straight into his neck. While waiting for him to fully enter the oblivious state of the drug induced coma, you should have time to sit back, and try to calm your nerves by taking a big swig of whiskey out of your flask, and lighting up a smoke.




edit on 6/22/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Show me an expert. Just one is all you need to win this debate. In film, science,special effects, ape suits,
evolution what have you. Just one who believes that and can say why ? I'm pretty sure you will only find those who like yourself, need more. In fact I think that redneck is the only guy saying it is a man in a suit nowadays.
The Patterson film has never been debunked. In fact it has become more solid as evidence over the years.
That's the true fact.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
These stories pop up every so often, I hope this one pans out.

I'm a believer in the possibility. For me there is just too many witnesses and stories going back in North American history well before the arrival of the "White" man to be just a wild conspiracy by some believers.


The above image is an animated .gif I made in photoshop. It is an artists rendition overlapping a still from the now infamous Patterson film.




Another bit of info to add to the growing long list.
Bigfoot/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

edit on 22-6-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Versa
 


I wonder what your reaction will be if you actually were scavenging the woods for Bigfoot and suddenly he stands in front of you looking everything but friendly. Would you be able to take a picture?
I would run as hell!


If I was a dedicated researcher of bigfoot??? Pretty sure I'd be able to gather my wits together in time to take a pic of him gallomping off into the woods.... My camera would be round my neck and after I'd finished screaming and bigfoot started off my camera would be up clicking away.... Its a big deal, if your looking for bigfoot and he screams at you through the car window your going to be trying to get a shot...


Not if, you as you are now, right now. I didn't ask you what your reaction would be if you were a researcher. Tomorrow we drop you in the woods with a camera and after an hour you stand in front of him at close range and he ain't looking friendly because it's mating season and he got disturbed by you.

Would you be able to get some clear shots for us? You get a thousand flags for the thread with the pictures and even more stars for it.
I'll even buy you a beer or roll you one.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


Show me an expert. Just one is all you need to win this debate. In film, science,special effects, ape suits,
evolution what have you. Just one who believes that and can say why ? I'm pretty sure you will only find those who like yourself, need more. In fact I think that redneck is the only guy saying it is a man in a suit nowadays.
The Patterson film has never been debunked. In fact it has become more solid as evidence over the years.
That's the true fact.


Saying there is no experts de-bunking the footage is quite frankly, rubbish! Here is a good read

Maybe the footage is real, maybe its a hoax, but this footage is in no way evidence that bigfoot is real. For that we need real evidence. Evidence that can be tested and proved beyond any doubt to be real.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
Not if, you as you are now, right now. I didn't ask you what your reaction would be if you were a researcher. Tomorrow we drop you in the woods with a camera and after an hour you stand in front of him at close range and he ain't looking friendly because it's mating season and he got disturbed by you.


Me personally I'd run, but I don't like big hairy beasts full stop! To be honest I get the heebie jeebies just reading about them and lock my doors! I'm not a fan of monkeys or apes, I saw a rhesus monkey take a fist sized chunk out of a woman's leg once and they aren't big!

Nope I'm not going out there but I have to assume that the people that are going out there aren't going to be running around screaming if they do ever see bigfoot. David Attenborough could probably keep his cool and get the shots, send him out there




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join