Patterson Film Stabilized

originally posted by: Dapaga
I find it hard to believe that a low budget documentary in 1967 would have the money or abilities to create an ape suit that even by today's standards would be nearly impossible to duplicate.

It was Phillip Morris, magician turned costume maker, who claimed to make the costume, but I think he simply saw a way to get some national publicity.

Exactly the abilities to do such, they may have had the cash, but stretch "fur", is said to have not existed until the 1980s. Around the time of the Patterson film there was the costume fur used in the Planet of the Apes. That material was stiff.

Plus in wondering why the breasts would have been added in. Bob looks like a rather large man with possible extra weight in the chest area one might assume that the material they had used adhered to him well. In some attempt to make their find appear female of course, but why go to those lengths, unless plans for a younger appearing costumed big foot to be filmed, back story, movie, etc.

a reply to: ugmold

There's something weird about the feet in the first few frames of the gif. Something flopping about. Obviously can't pause it, but that's what I see.

a reply to: ugmold

I'm not sure about the film but one thing I noticed is that what ever it is it sure has a long stride.

I have to say the Patterson footage makes me want to believe bigfoot is real. It looks good and still gives me chills when I watch it...

Also, the Shipton footprint image... cryptomundo.com... looks amazing until you notice that the "ball" of the print is convex instead of concave like it would be on a normal structured foot... I used to think this was the smoking gun, but there has been some sceptical and legit research on Shipton... www.bigfootencounters.com...

I like to believe the UFO connection to bigfoot, it really is the only way to explain why they have eluded us for so long...

Remember even six million dollar man chased bigfoot into an underground mountain alien base...lol...

a reply to: dreamingawake

While I don't doubt that this could be a hoax, it seems strange that this random "hoax" in 1967 is still better than hoaxes even today.

Why would it still hold up almost 50 years later? Sure we could recreate this now very easily, but even so with all the amazing technology advances we have made, this video holds up better. Makeup artistry has come a long way just in the last 10-20 years. 50 years ago it wasn't at all the huge industry it is today with the available materials and artists we now have.

Occam's razor could really go either way in this particular case.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Interesting. I didn't know he passed a lie detector test. While inconclusive, it does add weight to his claims.

ETA: Looks like Justin Smeja (the guy who claims to have shot 2 bigfoot and sent flesh samples to various labs) also passed a polygraph test. Makes me wonder, since I've always considered the Sierra Kills incident to be a hoax.

Still not sure I'm ready to label the patterson gimlin film a hoax based off a polygraph test, but I remain open minded.

LOL It was a TV show. Who knows what was going on during the examination and what the polygrapher 'really' discovered. Muhwahahahaha Tell me you didn't know the final outcome before you saw it.

a reply to: Snarl

I agree but the polygraph is not what makes me think this is a hoax. It was his imitation of the walk near the beginning of the video that convinced me.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Snarl

I agree but the polygraph is not what makes me think this is a hoax. It was his imitation of the walk near the beginning of the video that convinced me.

Really? I thought he had that down pretty good. I did question the length of it, but he's also a lot older in the video.

If I can remember, I'm gonna show that video to a buddy of mine who's been running a poly machine for decades and see what he thinks. Am willing to bet a wooden nickel he's going to comment on the length of the questions being asked and say that a respectable examiner would have broken up the questions. He'll probably also have something to say about the examiner sitting behind the subject instead of facing him.

a reply to: Snarl

Just wanna clarify. I was trying to say the polygraph is not what made me think the Patterson film is a hoax. It was his imitation of the walk near the beginning of the video that convinced me the Patterson film is a hoax.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Snarl

Just wanna clarify. I was trying to say the polygraph is not what made me think the Patterson film is a hoax. It was his imitation of the walk near the beginning of the video that convinced me the Patterson film is a hoax.

Gave you a star for that because that looks nothing alike to me. Interesting how two people can see the same thing so differently.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I thought the Patterson film had been debunked a while back. Something about them admitting to it is what I recall.

You're right. It was completely debunked.

Does that matter to people who want it to be true? Absolutely not. If it makes life less mundane, people want to believe it.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
Man admits: I was 'Bigfoot'

Lie detector of Bob "Bigfoot" Heironimus - Man in the suit

So you are going to believe a tv show?

This suit doesn't look too convincing to me, actually it looks like something bought at walmart in a halloween section. Where is this suit with "breasts"? If you claim to have used a suit, why couldn't you produce it, and it's been like what 50 years?


I think thinkerthunker brings up an important point here -



I guess the had the technology to make the toes go up while walking, back then? - Check at 2:53

There's actually an already existing thread Patterson Creature Proven Not A Suit

It outlines several points in the first post that sum up why it would be impossible for a human to have been in a suit in the Patterson film.

Here's the first post.

I've been combing the web for the past while trying to find a legal way I can show you this footage but I've had trouble. So those of you in the US should go through to THIS LINK and portal to the Monsterquest page to view the episode I am about to discuss.

I know many of you have given up hope regarding the professionalism and quality of Monsterquest, but I still watch it on a weekly basis and was stunned when they finally managed to prove something of drastic importance.

Several weeks ago an episode was aired called 'Crucial Evidence' that purported to finally prove once and for all that the Patterson film was genuine. I had my doubts, but am so impressed by what they proved and discovered that this thread is going to be a quick presentation of the key points for those of you who do not watch the show.


Point 1 - Mid-Tarsal Break

This joint in the centre of a primate's foot is one of the key points aired in this episode. A recent discovery, this trait that allows a foot to bend the opposite direction of a humans, is native to only non-human primates.

Move your foot for a second. Put your heel on the floor and your toes in the air. Now place your foot flat on the floor. Try to keep your toes on the floor and bend the back of your foot upwards. Your foot arches in the centre to try and do this. With a Mid-Tarsal Break, the foot simply bends at the centre, leaving the toes and fleshy front of the foot flat on the floor.

Several purportedly real Sasquatch tracks were analyzed with this unique trait in mind, and it was found that they showed the characteristics of having a mid-tarsal break. According to MQ, less than 6 experts in the US would have the knowledge to accurately create this generally unrecognized trait in a primate's foot.

How does this translate to the Patterson footage? The walking motion. The toes are planted on the ground, and then the rear of the foot hinges upwards before the foot lifts off the ground. A mid-tarsal break. This CANNOT be reproduced by a human foot without breaking the bones.







Point 2 - Scale and Attributes

It has been said by many skeptics in the past that the Patterson footage could easily contain a man in a suit. They claim there is nothing in the movement of the creature or it's limb - to - body ratio that could refute this theory. They have finally been proven wrong.

A hollywood costume design expert, who worked on such films as Night of the Living Dead, made at first a startling discovery. The Patterson film was not actually filmed on a 25mm lens as believed all these years. Using computer algorithms and a scientific formula, he proved that the film was actually filmed on a 15mm lens.

This automatically voids all previous analysis of the film and the creature as their calculations have now been proven wrong.

Using this new discovery, it was worked out that the creature is approximately 7ft 2inches tall.

This measurement allowed for the first ever body ratio analysis to be done on the film. It takes the height of the creature into account and determines if a human could meet the ratio required to fit into the suit and move as shown in the video.

The result is that a human COULD NOT even fit in the suit let alone move with the gait shown in the Patterson footage. Here is why:

1) The dimensions are wrong - A humans arms and legs would not accurately fit into the legs and arms of the Patterson creature. The joints are placed incorrectly.




2) The eyes are in the wrong place - For a human to be in the suit, his or her head would have to be protruding from the top of the suit to be able to see. In this case, if they were lower in the suit they would be walking blindly. This cannot be the case, as the creature looks directly at the camera as it is walking away. How would they know where to look if they couldn't see?




3) The fur - The stretch fur required to create this suit (the skin and fur does stretch over apparent muscles as seen in the enhanced footage) was not invented until the mid 70's.




That is basically the key points of the episode, and I STRONGLY encourage anyone with any doubts in my explanation to watch it for themselves. These experts know their stuff, and I have researched their names and credentials online before posting this thread. They are real recognized professionals in their fields.

I believe these facts prove once and for all that 'Patty' is not a man in a suit. It was a real, living creature.

Not even going to address the guy who came forward claiming to be the man in the suit while never actually producing it because it's ridiculous. If someone came forward claiming to have killed a bigfoot we would expect them to bring forth the body no? Primate suits from that era look ridiculous in comparison to this film. I'd also love to see anyone produce an image of a premade suit from that era with breasts.

On ATS mobile at the moment but if you look at the link to the quoted post there are pictures for reference for each point.

There is a lot better footage of the Patterson film than what I see in the OP. Zoomed, longer and stabilized, it shows the open mouth for instance, and glimpses of how strong the stride is as it gets further away.

I am most impressed with the heavy appearance and the stride as it quickens its pace to get away. The foot falls are heavy, supporting enormous weight, like a gorilla frame walking like a human. Thud, thud, thud, arms swinging, determined to escape. I think you would have to run to keep up.

I still can't see anything that tells me out and out its faked. The closer I look at it over the years, the more I still can't debunk it.

Believe me, I want to. Something I am good at. Despite (of course) the hoax claims by the parties involved, I am just looking at the film evidence.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Not even going to address the guy who came forward claiming to be the man in the suit while never actually producing it because it's ridiculous. If someone came forward claiming to have killed a bigfoot we would expect them to bring forth the body no? Primate suits from that era look ridiculous in comparison to this film. I'd also love to see anyone produce an image of a pre made suit from that era with breasts.

You addressed those points very well.

"I made a suit, here it is…"

And, "I shot a bigfoot, here is the head mounted on my wall…"

Thanks for chiming in.

a reply to: Xaphan

Link?Is there a link where it was totally debunked?

a reply to: ugmold

Looks like a Big Fat Furry Texan to me.

Here's an interesting article that says (among other things) that it might have a been a costume also used in a Lost in Space episode.

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another, just thought it was an interesting article.

Strangemag.com

Polygraph results can't hardly be considered evidence. There is a reason why they are not being used in courtrooms, that is because they are anything but reliable or accurate. It is hocus pokus science.

I am not saying the Patterson footage is real, it might not be, it might be, it is besides the point.
Fact is, Bigfoot sightings date back way before the Patterson footage was shot, stretching from accounts from native Americans, to colonizers, to Franklin Roosevelt.

No matter how often we talk about the Patterson footage, its not going to get us anywhere in terms of proving the existence of this elusive primate.

a reply to: DelMarvel

you mean this lost in space...



seems like some legit effects lol

i mean c'mon even planet of the apes had terrible costumes and that was a major hollywood production.

it's impossible to find ANY costume from that era that would remotely convincing and with breasts to boot. not to mention as was previously stated the type of stretch fur that would have to of been used to produce the hair/skin directly and thinly over muscle effect did not exist the year the film was made.

not a man in a suit.