Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hairy Beast

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 





randyvs
Thanks for posting i fell asleep thinking no one was going to post to my thread
I had my doubts about the video also ..But i thought the Patterson video was deemed a hoax also ..But i always liked that video i thought it was one of the better ones.
The one i posted the BigFoot just looks to human in the way it walks and reacts but most are like that ..I just wish for a clear picture non fuzzy with at least 2 mins of the creature..time will tell i guess..peace,sugarcookie1


Psss...

Wake up !

You prolly have a lap-top. I'd have to fall asleep sitting up at my desk. End up drooling all over myself.


Just want to let you know that the Patty film, has never been debunked and most likely never will be. You have to consider the fact that, it was filmed at an innocent time of the least technology. To this date that is the piece of evidence that debunkers can't refute. The history channel puts out a lot of disinfo on the subject and tried to say it was this big redneck dude in a suit. But that was proven to be the hoax. In fact the Patty film just becomes more convincing as technology exposes more of her.

I say Patty and her for a very good reason.



Did you notice the breasts when she turns to look at the camera ?



But didnt Patterson himself say he faked it? And then came back and said something like, he faked it, but as they were putting away the fake stuff a real bigfoot showed up and thats whats on the film?
I heard a guy called Dr. Micheal Lynch talk about it a few years back on a radio show.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by coop039

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 





randyvs
Thanks for posting i fell asleep thinking no one was going to post to my thread
I had my doubts about the video also ..But i thought the Patterson video was deemed a hoax also ..But i always liked that video i thought it was one of the better ones.
The one i posted the BigFoot just looks to human in the way it walks and reacts but most are like that ..I just wish for a clear picture non fuzzy with at least 2 mins of the creature..time will tell i guess..peace,sugarcookie1


Psss...

Wake up !

You prolly have a lap-top. I'd have to fall asleep sitting up at my desk. End up drooling all over myself.


Just want to let you know that the Patty film, has never been debunked and most likely never will be. You have to consider the fact that, it was filmed at an innocent time of the least technology. To this date that is the piece of evidence that debunkers can't refute. The history channel puts out a lot of disinfo on the subject and tried to say it was this big redneck dude in a suit. But that was proven to be the hoax. In fact the Patty film just becomes more convincing as technology exposes more of her.

I say Patty and her for a very good reason.



Did you notice the breasts when she turns to look at the camera ?



But didnt Patterson himself say he faked it? And then came back and said something like, he faked it, but as they were putting away the fake stuff a real bigfoot showed up and thats whats on the film?
I heard a guy called Dr. Micheal Lynch talk about it a few years back on a radio show.


coop039
I'm going to have to do some research on the Patterson video I'm hearing so many different story's about this i was also told way back it was a hoax..But i what your saying is the first time i heard he admitted it was a hoax but after he put the hoaxed stuff away the real BigFoot showed up that right there tells me something is not right..Something sounds very fishy about that..peace,sugarcookie1



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by coop039
 





But didnt Patterson himself say he faked it? And then came back and said something like, he faked it, but as they were putting away the fake stuff a real bigfoot showed up and thats whats on the film?


I don't believe there is an official statement by Patterson that has him stating that he faked anything. All this amounts to is here say. So anyone claiming the film is a hoax, in the light of this rumor, isn't interested in looking into things fairly.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I agree with Randy. As far as I know both Patterson and Gimlin always claimed the film to be of a genuine Bigfoot.

Though other people have claimed it was a hoax. Bob Heironimus claims he was actually wearing the suit. Costume designer/manufacturer Phillip Morris claims Patterson bought the suit from him and gained advice on how to make it look like a Neanderthal, for a prank... "Patty" certainly looks like a prop from a b grade movie.


As far as the "why would anyone fake a bigfoot with breasts"...Patterson wrote a book a couple of years previous to the film, in which he had a sketch of bigfoot...with breasts. Go figure.

From any point of view of biology, this creature is very contradictory (the celluloid equivalent of Piltdown Man). Despite the wishful thinking of believers, there is nothing about this film that rules out a man in a suit. This is what it will always be, until a Bigfoot is found to make comparisons. I doubt that will happen.

edit on 6-5-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Except Neanderthals wouldn't be hairy like that.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
While I accept the probability that Bigfoot is real, I don't think this video is good evidence. I can see, in the enhanced part, CLOTHING on the figure. It looks totally human to me. I think this video is a fake.

That said, there are some GOOD ones out there. The Patterson/Gimlin film, of course, and the one with the running BF, that they CANNOT duplicate, even with a professional runner. Lots of evidence, too. Even Jane Goodall believes they are real, and you don't get more expert than that!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Regarding the PG film - No, Patterson NEVER claimed he'd faked it. Neither did Gimlin. The most compelling thing about it (as if seeing it isn't enough! - always looked like a real creature to me, even as a child that watched countless hours of nature/wildlife films) is that no one can duplicate it, even now, and do so in such a way that it's half as believable as the original The best costumes ad makeup, and they can't do it. Plus, they have used models to look at he gait, and the proportions, etc, and a human simply cannot do what Patty did. The best of that day was seen in the movie, The Planet of the Apes. NOTHING like what we saw in the PG film, and that was the best they had then. Two low budget guys are supposed to have faked it, and done what the pros today can't do? I can't buy that. That one, to me, has always been, and will always be, the real deal. There are some more recent ones (as mentioned above) that are good, too. Tracks with dermal ridges, scat, hair, DNA, calls that even wildlife people can't explain (though there are some that are misidentification), and too many witnesses, over decades, to discount. There is an old book now reprinted, on the topic worldwide - Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, by Ivan T. Sanderson that is WELL worth a read. Very scientific view of the whole phenomenon. Highly recommended book. I have a copy.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Except Neanderthals wouldn't be hairy like that.


It seems Patterson had a different opinion on the hirsuteness of our evolutionary relatives, according to Morris. .


As an aside, I would be interested in how you would actually know that about Neanderthals. How many have you met ?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
the one with the running BF, that they CANNOT duplicate, even with a professional runner.


Do you have a link to this? Sounds fascinating.


Lots of evidence, too.


Where might I find this? I thought there was absolutely zero direct evidence of Bigfoot.


Even Jane Goodall believes they are real, and you don't get more expert than that!


When asked to explain, she did say something like..."well... I have always wanted them to be real, I'm a romantic"... But you probably already knew that? Who doesn't want them to be real?


Your above two posts seem a little contradictory. I agree with your first paragraph. Something is going on that is worth taking seriously (even if a real bigfoot isn't the cause), though it's a shame (IMO) when things like the pg film are held up as if some sort of proof.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes 

The best costumes ad makeup, and they can't do it.



Where movies are concerned, you realise they film closer, not shakey and with very good quality that is actually focused and shows detail. You make it sound like the pg film is a cinematic masterpiece. It isn't. The distance and blurry, grainy poor quality is the only thing that saves it, it can't be analysed in any detail. It's not hard to see from the Morris suit that if the same distant, blurry, shakey, out of focus filming technique was used, a younger Heironimus could have been Patty in a suit that was altered by Patterson. His walk itself is extremely similar.
 

Plus, they have used models to look at he gait, and the proportions, etc, and a human simply cannot do what Patty did.


That would only be your opinion. The general scientific opinion is that there is nothing about "Patty" in any way, that rules it out as being a man in a suit, because their isn't. We know people exist (in their billions), we know ape suits exist, we know people make pranks, we don't know thet even one bigfoot exists, ergo... 

Meldrum debunked the "compliant gait" nonsense himself. Fair enough I suppose, as he was probably the only "scientist" that believed it anyway. Why he needed an experiment to do this is the only mystery, most people would have got up out of their chair and worked it out.

There is lots of proof, the problem is that none of it is any good. Such as the hair that could not be matched to any known animal, because it was synthetic...You realise there is a big difference between claiming to have proof and actually having proof? Footprints are direct proof that something impacted the ground. The dermal ridges are questionable. It is likely they are so baffling because they are actually casting artifacts. These have been recreated. Could you provide links to these other reputable, verifiable proofs? Such as published papers on the genetic findings you mention, or scat, from reputable people? I'm sure there would be, if it was from an unknown species. The peer review would be interesting. I wonder why zoologists/biologist aren't out looking for bigfoot...?


and too many witnesses, over decades, to discount.


I agree there is something going on worthy of study. Not only where bigfoot is concerned, as he is actually one of the least likely "hairy men" to physically exist IMO, but for others that do have greater possibility. Even if they are not real biological creatures, in some ways this only makes it more fascinating.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I'm so ashamed. Full disclosure and confession to clear my conscience. I clicked on this thread automatically because I thought it said Hairy BrEAST. I am, in my heart of hearts, just a pig I suppose. I don't even want to see one. I don't think.
Again, sorry.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 43LEO729
Another interesting Squatch vid.
Fake or real, who knows? If fake,
no one will admit to it. If real then take
it for what it's worth. Either way it's still
a fascintaing subject. A passing thought
however, could this have been orchestrated
for the entertainment of this church group?

Just wondering.


Hi Leo..
I agree its a fascinating subject one that will probably go on for years till we get some truth if BigFoot is real or not..peace,sugarcookie1



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirefly
I'm so ashamed. Full disclosure and confession to clear my conscience. I clicked on this thread automatically because I thought it said Hairy BrEAST. I am, in my heart of hearts, just a pig I suppose. I don't even want to see one. I don't think.
Again, sorry.


wirefly
LOL now thats just silly
peace,sugarcookie1



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I bought a trail cam today and I'm setting it up on my property i have tons of wooded acreage maybe i can film this elusive beast

Plus id like to see just whats in my woods at night ..what kind of animals room the woods around here..peace,sugarcookie1..Im excited about this



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Except Neanderthals wouldn't be hairy like that.


It seems Patterson had a different opinion on the hirsuteness of our evolutionary relatives, according to Morris. .


As an aside, I would be interested in how you would actually know that about Neanderthals. How many have you met ?


We have specimens, DNA, and you know .. a thing called science.
[quote[Neanderthals looked much like modern humans only shorter, more heavily built and much stronger, particularly in the arms and hands.
www.bbc.co.uk...

It would be tough to pick out a Neanderthal who was walking down the street. The artist renderings making them hairy was an attempt at making people view Neanderthals as some kind of cave man brute, which we know (and knew then) is false. There has been a lot of debate whether Neanderthals even need a sub class and should instead be merely classified Homo Sapiens.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


In other words Occam, what your really saying is, you don't know. Modern humans themselves can be extremely hairy. Science doesn't have time machines yet.


I tend to agree with your assumption, but the fact is, we don't really know. No one really knows. None of the things you mention tell us how hairy, or otherwise, Neanderthal man was. I doubt many scientists would have trouble agreeing on that fact. Unless you could point me to the reviewed and accepted paper that proves as scientific fact the amount of hair on the average Neanderthal?


edit on 9-5-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.






top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join