Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

The Patterson Bigfoot suit


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#106    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,503 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 03 June 2013 - 05:55 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 01 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

I also find it interesting that Patterson filmed bigfoot on the first day of his trip, within hours of setting out on horseback.

That is more incredible than all of Bob and Phils claims tied together and folded over. IMHO.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#107    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,251 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 June 2013 - 04:21 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 03 June 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

That is not quite true, Morris reproduced the suit, which even today the BFRO still says cannot be done.
Well, yes it is true, no evidence has been produced by Morris that backs up his claim.

Quote

And there is little doubt Patterson asked him for alteration instructions, he asked Harvey Anderson the same thing exactly.
This is called putting the cart before the horse. You have to first prove there was a transaction and dialogue between the 2 parties before such speculation can be entertained.

Quote

I have a hard time believing Ed over Phil as Ed's claim is very loose, and was made during a TV episode. Verne Langdon seems to back Phils story, as do other aspects, do any aspects support Ed's version of events? It's just a sentence on a TV show isn't it?
Until some concrete evidence somes forward, I'm going with the skeptic stance here and say "show me the body(s)".

Posted Image

#108    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 03 June 2013 - 08:28 PM

Bingo Stardrive! It's all just so much water under the bridge, but it makes for great social media.

As far as actually find a Bigfoot, it doesn't do anything.


#109    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,551 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:31 AM

What we need to do is capture Bigfoot... teach him sign language, and ask that SOB if he's ever been to Bluff Creek.

Step one: Capture a bigfoot... Still working on this one...

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#110    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,503 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 02:18 AM

View PostStardrive, on 03 June 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, yes it is true, no evidence has been produced by Morris that backs up his claim.

Considering he produced a suit that matches Patterson's, I think he has as much evidence as anyone does on Patty. He can make you a whole new one. Despite what the BFRO says.

View PostStardrive, on 03 June 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

This is called putting the cart before the horse. You have to first prove there was a transaction and dialogue between the 2 parties before such speculation can be entertained.

Why is that? Do you feel someone who wants Patterson's claim to be true, seeming as Patterson is dead, is more plausible than someone who was actually there, and can provide details? What about circumstantial evidence like Patterson having a shed full of leather-working tools and his fascination with Sandersons success?

I have proof in that Phillip Morris testifies this is the case, you do not believe him, therefore isn't the onus on you to provide the proof that he is not telling the truth? He has reproduced the "impossible" suit.

View PostStardrive, on 03 June 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Until some concrete evidence somes forward, I'm going with the skeptic stance here and say "show me the body(s)".


Posted Image




Cannot be done remember.

Posted Image


You can pick that suit up and put it on, it does not come much more physical than that, there be your body.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#111    Stoned Jackelope

Stoned Jackelope

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:22 AM

I have an easier time believing in Sasquatch being caught on film by Patterson than CNN pretending to film on location in Iraq....I don't think it's a hoax...


#112    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,503 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:40 AM

View PostStoned Jackelope, on 04 June 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

I have an easier time believing in Sasquatch being caught on film by Patterson than CNN pretending to film on location in Iraq....I don't think it's a hoax...

Why don't you think it's a hoax? Could I talk you into sharing the expertise expended that helped draw this conclusion?

I like Fox news myself.

Posted Image

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#113    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:11 AM

Didn't Patterson admit it was a hoax before he died?


#114    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,503 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:51 AM

View PostAntilles, on 04 June 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Didn't Patterson admit it was a hoax before he died?

Nope, that is just rumour. He did admit this film was his wife's legacy and that he knew he was dying of cancer. This was supposed to support her when he was gone. I'd say the rumour may have grown from that.

Edited by psyche101, 04 June 2013 - 06:52 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#115    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,775 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 04 June 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Why don't you think it's a hoax? Could I talk you into sharing the expertise expended that helped draw this conclusion?

I like Fox news myself.

Posted Image


Best post on this topic..... :tu:

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#116    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,251 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 04 June 2013 - 01:50 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 04 June 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

Considering he produced a suit that matches Patterson's, I think he has as much evidence as anyone does on Patty. He can make you a whole new one. Despite what the BFRO says.
Seeing how he makes his living building costumes, I don't doubt for a second he can produce something very simililar. As far as evidence goes, it's only evidence that he can make a suit that looks similar to the subject in the PGF.

Quote

I have proof in that Phillip Morris testifies this is the case, you do not believe him, therefore isn't the onus on you to provide the proof that he is not telling the truth? He has reproduced the "impossible" suit.
You know as well as I do, testimony isn't proof.

Posted Image

#117    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 04 June 2013 - 06:18 PM

View Postskookum, on 24 May 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

Just something that has come to mind.

I have been watching a load of Monster movies from the 1960's/1970's.  Just for fun and I mean it is a laugh to see how ridiculous Monster costumes and special effects look today.


They made me think.  If the Patterson footage is faked as we are told, why does it look so much more realistic than anything Hollywood was kicking out at the time?

I can only assume it was made in far more detail than things used on the film sets.  Why spend so much time and money on a short clip, surely the revenue to pay for such an item would have been far less than a well budgeted movie.

It is one of those things where I have accepted over the years it is fake, but the more I look at it especially now it is enhanced, the detail and features are just amazing.  Far beyond what they would have known would have been visible on camera equipment used in that era.

So were they incredible forward thinking and made very intricate detail knowing in 30 years time it could be analysed digitally with computer software?  Or could it be that it may not have been possible or even feasible to make something like that at the time making it a real creature of some kind?


I have not read this entire thread but I hope to soon, please forgive me for popping in and running, not much time.

When I fisrt saw the PG film, I thought - "A man in a monkey suit". And as the OP here suggests, no, the best of Hollywood set costumes in those days could not stretch, so says a Hollywood set director of many years. The stretch material only became available many years after the PG film was made. And he was referring directly to the stretching mammories of the creature when it turned it's head and swung. Can't be faked, not then. Those mamm's are real.

Also, if this was alleged to have been some 7.5 foot tall man, I would think he would feel somewhat insulted to have to pretend to be a female, no?
So why add stress to the entire situation by possibly insulting the tall man, and by giving yourself more work to do in the design of the costume? It makes no sense.
That *in my opinion*, is no "man in a monkey suite", it's a BF.

Let us not forget, yes, the gait of the creature is very resemblent of that of man, but that is because, as I  now know, BF *is* a human.

I did intend some day to do a revisit of the PG film, now that the enhanced digital film is available. great stuff. Glad to see someone else surfaced it.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#118    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 04 June 2013 - 11:20 PM

Just a passing thought about Patty's breasts: females are usually smaller than males, so maybe the breasts were there to explain why Patty was shorter than Bigfoots are usually reported to be (if she was). That would be a useful dodge if Patty was really a normal-sized guy in a suit.

On the other hand, it's interesting that the only non-human apes whose females have breasts, bonobos, are also the only other (somewhat) bipedal ape species.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock, 04 June 2013 - 11:24 PM.


#119    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 04 June 2013 - 11:28 PM

Personally, I have to sort of wonder about the really large/tall ones you hear about a lot. Ten feet plus in height and such, personally anything that freaking large is going to get noticed regardless of how stealthy it might be. I think eight feet is a stretch, and I think it could be to shock and a little fear, surprise all rolled up into one. I recall guys reporting being attacked by 200 plus VC in Nam......then you point out that they were only a ten man squad and that 200 plus VC would have eaten their cookies.

I've never seen a Bigfoot so I have no idea what their actual height is.....however? Ten feet? They could have a great career in the NBA.


#120    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 32,503 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 04 June 2013 - 11:36 PM

View PostStardrive, on 04 June 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Seeing how he makes his living building costumes, I don't doubt for a second he can produce something very simililar. As far as evidence goes, it's only evidence that he can make a suit that looks similar to the subject in the PGF.

Indeed he can, he can make one that looks just the same, in all dimensions from a 30 second film clip. He can recreate her, just as is claimed he can.

What we have is a subject in a film. All but a couple of fringe scientists can point out a dozen reasons why this is a man in a suit. All but one costume maker say it is a costume and they could do better. We have controversy because people believe in this incredibly small minority that is working on wild guesses. With regards to the film, 46 years of investigation has shown no trace of Bigfoot in the area ever again, nobody has filmed this again, nothing at all, but on the hoax side we have a man who says he wore the suit, we have a man who said he laid tracks all over the area, we have men who are not eyewitness testimony, but direct witnesses to Patterson's request for advice on said suit and we have "The Suit" recreated. It looks to me the suit has one heck of a lot more behind it than the sorry cries of "show me the suit" that support Patterson.

If Morris really wanted to scam this, he could just have made a suit and left it in the weather for 6 months, and then claimed it was the original, perhaps retrieved due to a bounced check. How would you prove that wrong? And the thing would be worth a small fortune to a collector. I know of a couple of Georgia Policeman that might be more than interested in it.

View PostStardrive, on 04 June 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

You know as well as I do, testimony isn't proof.

Eyewitness testimony is decidedly shaky, these people are direct witnesses. Harvey Anderson offerred a recollection of an actual conversation, not a recollection of something blurry in the woods at distance. I see a difference there myself.

Edited by psyche101, 05 June 2013 - 12:06 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users