Full Version: Roger Patterson video
I don't know what to believe on this one. The way 'bigfoot' moves is very human-like. He even looks over his shoulder at the camera in such a way that indicates he is not bigfoot at all, however the video is certainly real and bigfoots size is un-natural.
Oh, it was proven as a fake. They came out and admitted they did it for money.
If you're actually referring to the PATTERSON footage, (never heard of any parson footage) that was never actaully admitted by patterson as being a fake. He took it to his grave swearing that it was real.
Several years after his death some people came forward and said that they were in on it, one man even claimed to be the bigfoot on film in a costume. But since PATTERSON took it to his grave, many still believe it is real.
Several years after his death some people came forward and said that they were in on it, one man even claimed to be the bigfoot on film in a costume. But since PATTERSON took it to his grave, many still believe it is real.
I seem to have a problem confuseing Alex Parson and Roger Patterson. Yes, Patterson is who I'm reffering too. Thanks for the info.
I believe Talon will be able to give you the best info on thisd. He firmly believes the footage is real.
QUOTE(JennRose @ Dec 8 2004, 02:44 PM)
Oh, it was proven as a fake. They came out and admitted they did it for money.
[right][snapback]392799[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]392799[/snapback][/right]
Even when you have someone admit it was fake, people still don't want to let go of it. It is ashame as people that we have pin our hopes on something that probably does not exist.
Well, Burnside did bring up an interesting point. Patterson himself never wavered on it, and the others said they just kept quiet out of respect for him while he lived (if I'm not mistaken he died not very long ago at all). So I guess there is always hope for it.
But yeah, even proven forgeries still pop up. The Loch Ness surgeon's photo springs immediately to mind.
But yeah, even proven forgeries still pop up. The Loch Ness surgeon's photo springs immediately to mind.
People still believe that even after decades of it being a proven hoax. Tis a shame!
A few people comeing fowards and annouceing it a hoax they were a part of doesnt make it a hoax. If I wanted to I could say that about anything. You have to find out why first, then how and when, then make your own dicison. The video isnt reliable, but neither are those that announced it a hoax they were part of.
I agree with burnside... it is a very big shame.... most of the peoplenever did enough research to even find out if it was real or no.... so if they would have just looked it up better they would have known it was a fake
But Burnside was agreeing with ME!! "I agree with Burnside." What about ME?? *wanders off grumbling*
j/k
j/k
lol. Let me re-phrase:
'I agree with Burnside, and all those that share the oppinion he has stated'
lol.
'I agree with Burnside, and all those that share the oppinion he has stated'
lol.
I believe it's real, too much technology for the time the video was made.
If it was fake it would be a guy in a suit shot by a videocamera. Videocameras, and guys in suits, were around in the 70's. 
Don't forget that Patterson himself wasn't all that reliable either. Heck, he got arrested for stealing the machine he recorded Bigfoot on. He was known not just as a trickster, but as a con artist, as in bilking people out of their money. Don't think of him as a shining paragon of honesty. If someone with a known criminal record, who is recognized by the local police as a scammer, suddenly comes up and says "You know, I wanted to go into the woods today and see if I could spot Bigfoot, and gosh, wouldn't you know it?, I just happened to find him, and I even got a witness and a film to prove it!", then you should be on your guard.
Amen to that. I wasn't aware Patterson was a con man, definately sounds a little more on the fishy side now.
QUOTE(BurnSide @ Dec 8 2004, 10:10 PM)
If it was fake it would be a guy in a suit shot by a videocamera. Videocameras, and guys in suits, were around in the 70's.
[right][snapback]393069[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]393069[/snapback][/right]
I meant the alledged suit.
If you look at the detail, and talk to experts in that field that sort of technology wasn't around back then. Even today compare it to some of the expensive special effects that have around, you'd be hard pressed to match it.
The Patterson footage is a very controversial topic.. some are such believers that they will not listen to reasoning .. while others are such non- believers. I personally am undecided because I believe in bigfoot. But either way I won't be suprised if they prove it fake.. nor if they prove it real.
Patterson NEVER admitted the video was faked. If I may, allow me to give a quick rundown on the tries to debunk. A fellow named McClarin claimed to be the creature. After trying to replicate the walk: nothing. John Chambers, make-up artist on Planet of the Apes, claimed to have made the suit. Then before he died he admitted to Bobbie Short on tape that "I didn't do it and don't know anyone who could've at the time." Now, Bob Heironimus says hes the creature and says he'll do the walk FOR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, and the suit he says is almost an exact copy of the one in the film? Well, look for yourself 
. Nothing to date. No offense intended here guys, but I just wanted to clarify that the Patterson footage has not been proven to be a hoax.
. Nothing to date. No offense intended here guys, but I just wanted to clarify that the Patterson footage has not been proven to be a hoax.
QUOTE(ripped_fx @ Dec 9 2004, 03:44 AM)
Patterson NEVER admitted the video was faked. If I may, allow me to give a quick rundown on the tries to debunk. A fellow named McClarin claimed to be the creature. After trying to replicate the walk: nothing. John Chambers, make-up artist on Planet of the Apes, claimed to have made the suit. Then before he died he admitted to Bobbie Short on tape that "I didn't do it and don't know anyone who could've at the time." Now, Bob Heironimus says hes the creature and says he'll do the walk FOR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, and the suit he says is almost an exact copy of the one in the film? Well, look for yourself . Nothing to date. No offense intended here guys, but I just wanted to clarify that the Patterson footage has not been proven to be a hoax.
[right][snapback]393637[/snapback][/right]
. Nothing to date. No offense intended here guys, but I just wanted to clarify that the Patterson footage has not been proven to be a hoax.[right][snapback]393637[/snapback][/right]
cheers for that information
i had no idea about most of those things....
Jim McClarin, sasquatch researcher and the famous statue builder, never claimed to be in the suit. In fact he and John Green were the researchers who did a reenactment of the film to try to get a measurement of the subject.
Kal Korff did a production called "World's Greatest Hoaxes" which tried to say a guy named Jerry Romney was the guy in the suit, which was a bust and I believe ended in a lawsuit. Then Ray Wallace passed on and his family claimed he was behind all the footprints, and somehow that got twisted into him being involved in the film. Wallace's films and suits and hoaxes were laughable, nobody believed them. Now Bob Heironimous nowclaims to be the guy in the suit, and who is partially behind this latest revelation? Yep, Kal Korff again.
Bob H's story conflicts with the man who claims to have made the suit, Phillip Morris. Bob stated the suit was made out of horse hide, came in 3 parts, a top like a sweater and the bottom like trousers, and a mask. While Morris claims he made the suit in 6 pieces, the whole body suit which zipped up the back, mask, 2 gloves and 2 feet, made with an artificial fur called Dynel. He obviously had never been to the filmsite, as it's several miles of rutts and inclines that takes a long time, yet he stated it was a short easy trip. He also said on the news that the guy who made the Planet of the Apes made the suit, and Chambers already denied it. These are just a few of the many holes in the story.
I'm still torn over the validity of the film, I do think it's very possible it's a hoax, but after reading the book and hearing Bob H change his story so many times I seriously doubt he was in the suit.
Kal Korff did a production called "World's Greatest Hoaxes" which tried to say a guy named Jerry Romney was the guy in the suit, which was a bust and I believe ended in a lawsuit. Then Ray Wallace passed on and his family claimed he was behind all the footprints, and somehow that got twisted into him being involved in the film. Wallace's films and suits and hoaxes were laughable, nobody believed them. Now Bob Heironimous nowclaims to be the guy in the suit, and who is partially behind this latest revelation? Yep, Kal Korff again.
Bob H's story conflicts with the man who claims to have made the suit, Phillip Morris. Bob stated the suit was made out of horse hide, came in 3 parts, a top like a sweater and the bottom like trousers, and a mask. While Morris claims he made the suit in 6 pieces, the whole body suit which zipped up the back, mask, 2 gloves and 2 feet, made with an artificial fur called Dynel. He obviously had never been to the filmsite, as it's several miles of rutts and inclines that takes a long time, yet he stated it was a short easy trip. He also said on the news that the guy who made the Planet of the Apes made the suit, and Chambers already denied it. These are just a few of the many holes in the story.
I'm still torn over the validity of the film, I do think it's very possible it's a hoax, but after reading the book and hearing Bob H change his story so many times I seriously doubt he was in the suit.
QUOTE
Jim McClarin, sasquatch researcher and the famous statue builder, never claimed to be in the suit. In fact he and John Green were the researchers who did a reenactment of the film to try to get a measurement of the subject.
You're right. Sorry about that, i confused him with Romney. Seems like you know alot. What are your favorite books on the subject?
Nope, they're right Walken. The daughter and son-in-law or son and daughter-in-law came out after he died and told the media that he did it for the fame. They were not a part of it, they just knew the truth all along. They didn't have the heart to fess up while he was alive but did just that after his death. Hate to be one of the ones to burst your bubble, but no bigfoot.
OH hey no problem! The whole history of sasquatchery is very dense, there's always been a lot more people involved than publicized. I have Ivan Sanderson's book Abominable Snowmen and Green's Apes Among Us at one time or another, back when I was really young, they are really good. I have Myra Shakley's Still Living, which I found good because it explored the phenomenon worldwide, which I think should be considered as a strength, though I disagree with the Neanderthal connection. The new books look good, Green's reprints as well as Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy, though I don't have those yet. I've ordered Patterson's book as well as Krantz's Bigfoot Prints.
A lot of info is available online, a great hub is:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=idx
A lot of really good and knowledgeable people there, contemporary researchers and all. The Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science dvd is great, just chock full of info, you can get that here:
http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp
I did a stabilization of the Patterson film, you can download that here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8155
I uploaded it to the video gallery here at UM but it's still not there so you can go to the link I provided above.
The whole history of sasquatchery is very dense, there's always been a lot more people involved than publicized. I have Ivan Sanderson's book Abominable Snowmen and Green's Apes Among Us at one time or another, back when I was really young, they are really good. I have Myra Shakley's Still Living, which I found good because it explored the phenomenon worldwide, which I think should be considered as a strength, though I disagree with the Neanderthal connection. The new books look good, Green's reprints as well as Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy, though I don't have those yet. I've ordered Patterson's book as well as Krantz's Bigfoot Prints.A lot of info is available online, a great hub is:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=idx
A lot of really good and knowledgeable people there, contemporary researchers and all. The Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science dvd is great, just chock full of info, you can get that here:
http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp
I did a stabilization of the Patterson film, you can download that here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8155
I uploaded it to the video gallery here at UM but it's still not there so you can go to the link I provided above.
QUOTE(squweekie @ Dec 8 2004, 09:07 PM)
Nope, they're right Walken. The daughter and son-in-law or son and daughter-in-law came out after he died and told the media that he did it for the fame. They were not a part of it, they just knew the truth all along. They didn't have the heart to fess up while he was alive but did just that after his death. Hate to be one of the ones to burst your bubble, but no bigfoot.
[right][snapback]393776[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]393776[/snapback][/right]
You must be talking about Ray Wallace who died just a few years ago, they claimed he hoaxed tracks. Roger Patterson died way back in 1972, and as far as I know his family still holds that he always believed he had filmed a real sasquatch. Unless you have a link handy that proves otherwise, which would help me a lot.
Here's a link on Wallace:
http://www.bfro.net/news/Wallace.asp
Here's a good link on the latest claims of the person in the suit:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/billmiller.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/billmiller.htm
The guy on the news that said it was "fake" has no proof of that.This guy is not either of the men there.Patterson said on the news that this guy is a liar.This guy on the news can't prove it.And after the show,the man that claimed to be the sasquatch was proved to be somewhat drunk after taking a breathylizer test 
Bottom line,there is no damn evidence that this patterson footage was faked...
BTW,this story on this guy that claimed to be in a suit was on the news various times,so i know what i heard.And i am sure that others know about this too...
Bottom line,there is no damn evidence that this patterson footage was faked...BTW,this story on this guy that claimed to be in a suit was on the news various times,so i know what i heard.And i am sure that others know about this too...
I remain a little skeptical about the footage....I firmly believe in bigfoot, and certainly if the footage turned out to be fake it would not, in any way, mean bigfoot was also fake (stories and encounters with bigfoot had existed for centuries before Patterson came along...his footage was just what brought it to public attention).
If it is a suit, then it's a good one....especially considering the time it was made. A modern team of special effects experts could, I don't doubt, create a similar suit, but that's using modern methods, and taking into account the cost of materials today. In the past, when the footage was shot, such a suit would have cost a great deal more.
People also seem to forget that Patterson wasn't alone when he shot the footage. He had a companion with him who also witnessed the creature, and it is generally agreed that, if it was a hoax, then he didn't know about it...
So some guy just gets up in a monkey suit, and runs around in front of a man with a loaded rifle, who doesn't know it's a work? Yeah....
The creature doesn't move like a human...for a start, it doesn't lock it's knee when it walks. While this is certainly an easy thing to fake, it is difficult to achieve not only at the speed the creature walked at, but also for the distance it did, without concentrated effort...and that's without being dressed in a stuffy, heavy suit, in a one take shot.
Someone mentioned earlier that the bigfoot turned its head, which suggests it isn't an ape....this is incorrect. The creature rotates its entire upper body when it turns, only turning its head slightly - this is inkeeping with what gorrillas and other large apes do, because their huge shoulder muscles make it impossible for them to turn their heads to any great degree.
This, coupled with what appear to be large breasts swaying on the creature's chest as it turns, seem a little too elaborate and subtle for a hoaxer to have slipped into the footage...
There are plenty of points that support the authenticity of the footage, and I'm sure there are others that don't (I do, however, find the points that don't support it tend not to stand up too well). Either way, I'm not altogether swayed one way or the other by the footage.
The footage isn't what makes me believe in bigfoot anyway. I don't believe the sasquatch to be a bipedal ape...just an ape.
If it is a suit, then it's a good one....especially considering the time it was made. A modern team of special effects experts could, I don't doubt, create a similar suit, but that's using modern methods, and taking into account the cost of materials today. In the past, when the footage was shot, such a suit would have cost a great deal more.
People also seem to forget that Patterson wasn't alone when he shot the footage. He had a companion with him who also witnessed the creature, and it is generally agreed that, if it was a hoax, then he didn't know about it...
So some guy just gets up in a monkey suit, and runs around in front of a man with a loaded rifle, who doesn't know it's a work? Yeah....
The creature doesn't move like a human...for a start, it doesn't lock it's knee when it walks. While this is certainly an easy thing to fake, it is difficult to achieve not only at the speed the creature walked at, but also for the distance it did, without concentrated effort...and that's without being dressed in a stuffy, heavy suit, in a one take shot.
Someone mentioned earlier that the bigfoot turned its head, which suggests it isn't an ape....this is incorrect. The creature rotates its entire upper body when it turns, only turning its head slightly - this is inkeeping with what gorrillas and other large apes do, because their huge shoulder muscles make it impossible for them to turn their heads to any great degree.
This, coupled with what appear to be large breasts swaying on the creature's chest as it turns, seem a little too elaborate and subtle for a hoaxer to have slipped into the footage...
There are plenty of points that support the authenticity of the footage, and I'm sure there are others that don't (I do, however, find the points that don't support it tend not to stand up too well). Either way, I'm not altogether swayed one way or the other by the footage.
The footage isn't what makes me believe in bigfoot anyway. I don't believe the sasquatch to be a bipedal ape...just an ape.
I have to say, my favorite is Loren Coleman's "Bigfoot! True Story of Apes In America."
Here is a link which explains everything quite well http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751
By the way, aquatus1 could you source your information on this part:
By the way, aquatus1 could you source your information on this part:
QUOTE
Don't forget that Patterson himself wasn't all that reliable either. Heck, he got arrested for stealing the machine he recorded Bigfoot on. He was known not just as a trickster, but as a con artist, as in bilking people out of their money. Don't think of him as a shining paragon of honesty. If someone with a known criminal record, who is recognized by the local police as a scammer...
He didn't necesarily steal the camera, he was late bringing it back, as he was in Bluff creek for 3 weeks before the filming and on his return he did return the camera. The charges were dismissed. Eh, it happens. Sure it's irresponsible but not the work of a criminal. His unpaid bills as presented in the book were some hefty hospital bills for his battle with cancer before he died not long after the filming. Again, it happpens.
The other stuff though isn't as easy to explain, late paying the bills for his book, the contract with Wilma Radford, and the legal entanglements for the rights to the film as he signed over a lot ot different people.
I just look at the film, analyze it, and go from there. Otherwise the gossip of Yakima is just too confusing.
The other stuff though isn't as easy to explain, late paying the bills for his book, the contract with Wilma Radford, and the legal entanglements for the rights to the film as he signed over a lot ot different people.
I just look at the film, analyze it, and go from there. Otherwise the gossip of Yakima is just too confusing.
QUOTE(Shadowsleet @ Dec 9 2004, 02:02 AM)
I remain a little skeptical about the footage....I firmly believe in bigfoot, and certainly if the footage turned out to be fake it would not, in any way, mean bigfoot was also fake (stories and encounters with bigfoot had existed for centuries before Patterson came along...his footage was just what brought it to public attention).
If it is a suit, then it's a good one....especially considering the time it was made. A modern team of special effects experts could, I don't doubt, create a similar suit, but that's using modern methods, and taking into account the cost of materials today. In the past, when the footage was shot, such a suit would have cost a great deal more.
People also seem to forget that Patterson wasn't alone when he shot the footage. He had a companion with him who also witnessed the creature, and it is generally agreed that, if it was a hoax, then he didn't know about it...
So some guy just gets up in a monkey suit, and runs around in front of a man with a loaded rifle, who doesn't know it's a work? Yeah....
The creature doesn't move like a human...for a start, it doesn't lock it's knee when it walks. While this is certainly an easy thing to fake, it is difficult to achieve not only at the speed the creature walked at, but also for the distance it did, without concentrated effort...and that's without being dressed in a stuffy, heavy suit, in a one take shot.
Someone mentioned earlier that the bigfoot turned its head, which suggests it isn't an ape....this is incorrect. The creature rotates its entire upper body when it turns, only turning its head slightly - this is inkeeping with what gorrillas and other large apes do, because their huge shoulder muscles make it impossible for them to turn their heads to any great degree.
This, coupled with what appear to be large breasts swaying on the creature's chest as it turns, seem a little too elaborate and subtle for a hoaxer to have slipped into the footage...
There are plenty of points that support the authenticity of the footage, and I'm sure there are others that don't (I do, however, find the points that don't support it tend not to stand up too well). Either way, I'm not altogether swayed one way or the other by the footage.
The footage isn't what makes me believe in bigfoot anyway. I don't believe the sasquatch to be a bipedal ape...just an ape.
[right][snapback]394061[/snapback][/right]
If it is a suit, then it's a good one....especially considering the time it was made. A modern team of special effects experts could, I don't doubt, create a similar suit, but that's using modern methods, and taking into account the cost of materials today. In the past, when the footage was shot, such a suit would have cost a great deal more.
People also seem to forget that Patterson wasn't alone when he shot the footage. He had a companion with him who also witnessed the creature, and it is generally agreed that, if it was a hoax, then he didn't know about it...
So some guy just gets up in a monkey suit, and runs around in front of a man with a loaded rifle, who doesn't know it's a work? Yeah....
The creature doesn't move like a human...for a start, it doesn't lock it's knee when it walks. While this is certainly an easy thing to fake, it is difficult to achieve not only at the speed the creature walked at, but also for the distance it did, without concentrated effort...and that's without being dressed in a stuffy, heavy suit, in a one take shot.
Someone mentioned earlier that the bigfoot turned its head, which suggests it isn't an ape....this is incorrect. The creature rotates its entire upper body when it turns, only turning its head slightly - this is inkeeping with what gorrillas and other large apes do, because their huge shoulder muscles make it impossible for them to turn their heads to any great degree.
This, coupled with what appear to be large breasts swaying on the creature's chest as it turns, seem a little too elaborate and subtle for a hoaxer to have slipped into the footage...
There are plenty of points that support the authenticity of the footage, and I'm sure there are others that don't (I do, however, find the points that don't support it tend not to stand up too well). Either way, I'm not altogether swayed one way or the other by the footage.
The footage isn't what makes me believe in bigfoot anyway. I don't believe the sasquatch to be a bipedal ape...just an ape.
[right][snapback]394061[/snapback][/right]
The greatest experts say that even with today's materials,it would be near possible to make.It would take many experts to do so.And almost 40 years ago...it would be impossible
Patterson/Gimlin footage is to this day the most credible footage of Wild Man. Researchers took this footage to Disney/Universal Studios a few years after it was shot to see if this could be recreated and/or hoaxed, Universal said that it would cost several million dollars and that nothing would be guaranteed. Disney stated that this was not a hoax because only its employee's could create something this realistic and it was not done by them. Patterson is recognized as not bright enough or financially stable enough to haox this and I am sure the same could be said about "Gimlin". (if that is the correct spelling) The muscle movements in the suit are nearly impossible thus making this REAL footage, Patterson went to his grave knowing so and I too believe this and some recordings and sightings are all we have to show for these cryptids.
:edit: Aside from all the native american tribes lore involving such beasts (pictographs and stories passed by word of mouth)
:edit: Aside from all the native american tribes lore involving such beasts (pictographs and stories passed by word of mouth)
QUOTE
Patterson/Gimlin footage is to this day the most credible footage of Wild Man. Researchers took this footage to Disney/Universal Studios a few years after it was shot to see if this could be recreated and/or hoaxed, Universal said that it would cost several million dollars and that nothing would be guaranteed. Disney stated that this was not a hoax because only its employee's could create something this realistic and it was not done by them.
Interesting! Can you source this for us?
Loretta
QUOTE(Tia @ Dec 8 2004, 10:08 PM)
I believe it's real, too much technology for the time the video was made.
[right][snapback]393066[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]393066[/snapback][/right]
I've looked at the footage several times and I seriously doubt that it's real. For one thing the "bigfoot" is moving very stiffly. If it was a real animal, it'd be moving far more freely. Another thing: how on earth could Patterson have kept hold of the camera after being thrown from a horse? That's what I'd like to know because I've fallen off horses several times and believe me, it's not so easy to get back up after falling 1.5 metres from a moving horse.
Patterson never admitted the fake - therefore I do believe it was real. Didn't a court debate at one point prove that the shoulder blades were located in a position that a human could not possibly have.
No, but it's intresting to hear.
QUOTE(Mysteryman @ Dec 12 2004, 11:46 AM)
Patterson never admitted the fake - therefore I do believe it was real. Didn't a court debate at one point prove that the shoulder blades were located in a position that a human could not possibly have.
[right][snapback]400213[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]400213[/snapback][/right]
yupyup i think its real to, cause even if it was fake dont you think he'd have admitted it atleast? and he didnt so therefor i think its real also.
Great to see all my old topics being revived
I thought it was fake until yesterday, when Mysterey man showed me the light.
I thought it was fake until yesterday, when Mysterey man showed me the light.
It just looks real.
The movements esp. the breasts and hair,
the face etc; all look real.
Wasn't there a study done on the upper arm
bone measurements? Seems it was totally
not human.
Anyway, as a huge monster and creature movie
fan, I am hyper-critical of effects. The only things
that ever appeared real to me was an old film of
two spherical ufo's from the 50's and the
patterson film. Oh yeah, the giant in Big Fish, that
truly is the best "fake" I have ever seen.
So, rumors and stories aside, what do you all think
of the film??
The movements esp. the breasts and hair,
the face etc; all look real.
Wasn't there a study done on the upper arm
bone measurements? Seems it was totally
not human.
Anyway, as a huge monster and creature movie
fan, I am hyper-critical of effects. The only things
that ever appeared real to me was an old film of
two spherical ufo's from the 50's and the
patterson film. Oh yeah, the giant in Big Fish, that
truly is the best "fake" I have ever seen.
So, rumors and stories aside, what do you all think
of the film??
I definitely think that the film could possibly be real. The movement is one thing that convinces me, for one, you can almost see the muscle movement if you look close enough, and two, it is said that if bigfoot does exist, than it's head would be to long to look to the side without moving it's whole torso. In the footage, the bigfoot does move its entire torso when it looks over.
QUOTE(Walken @ Mar 13 2005, 09:03 AM)
Great to see all my old topics being revived
I thought it was fake until yesterday, when Mysterey man showed me the light.
[right][snapback]523626[/snapback][/right]
I thought it was fake until yesterday, when Mysterey man showed me the light.
[right][snapback]523626[/snapback][/right]
Yeah I did, lol.
That you certainley did do.
That BBC costume is so funny
That BBC costume is so funny
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Dec 8 2004, 03:16 PM)
Don't forget that Patterson himself wasn't all that reliable either. Heck, he got arrested for stealing the machine he recorded Bigfoot on. He was known not just as a trickster, but as a con artist, as in bilking people out of their money. Don't think of him as a shining paragon of honesty. If someone with a known criminal record, who is recognized by the local police as a scammer, suddenly comes up and says "You know, I wanted to go into the woods today and see if I could spot Bigfoot, and gosh, wouldn't you know it?, I just happened to find him, and I even got a witness and a film to prove it!", then you should be on your guard.
[right][snapback]393073[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]393073[/snapback][/right]
That completly changes my view of the Patterson footage
One Name I didn't hear mentioned that plays a key role in the film is Jeff Meldrum. Here's a man who spends most of his time learning how primate bodies move. He has studied the film countless times and he believes that what is it the film IS NOT human. Now given all his knowledge I personally believe that the film is real.
Jesse.
PS. That BBC remake just makes the film that much more believable.
EDIT: Here are some links to Jeffs work.
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MELD/jeffrsch.htm
Jesse.
PS. That BBC remake just makes the film that much more believable.
EDIT: Here are some links to Jeffs work.
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MELD/jeffrsch.htm
This film is from 1967-keep that in mind. Biomechanical experts, primate experts, film experts, and the like have all worked on this film and it still holds the test of time. Patterson has been doubted because it is implausible that someone looking for bigfoot would come up with evidence. It is always suspicious when someone finds what they are looking for. Somehow that is the case. Not for me, but for a lot of people. It seems more acceptable to see something when you aren't looking or prepared. When I look for something I expect to find it. One more thing about the footage-the stride and tracks that were examined were concluded to be of a 700+lb "biped" that stands over 7' tall. If it's a dude-he's large.
Uh-huh. It is still excpetionally hard to do now.
The sasquache in that video is a female. She has breasts. However, her posture and shoulders are that of a male. Anyone notice this?
The sasquache in that video is a female. She has breasts. However, her posture and shoulders are that of a male. Anyone notice this?
QUOTE
However, her posture and shoulders are that of a male. Anyone notice this?
I'm just curious but how did you come up with that? What part of "its" posture makes you believe its male? I'm not saying your wrong by any means.
Jesse.
I think most of us want to believe. I've never seen anything but have heard plenty. I have talked to those who have sworn they've seen something by the roadside, or across the lake, or where ever. It's never like they saw what they saw yesterday or last night. It's always yesterday 10 years ago! Or once upon a time. I'm often told it's in fear of being laughed at.
Can you imagine seeing something like a Bigfoot and not being able to explain what you've seen, and then not being able to tell anyone for fear of being called a nut. What I have a hard time understanding is why thousands....thousands of people report these "things" every year. Why would you do this with that threat of being the "crazy lady who saw Chewbacca in her garden"? What are these people seeing and why would they make these stories up?
Can you imagine seeing something like a Bigfoot and not being able to explain what you've seen, and then not being able to tell anyone for fear of being called a nut. What I have a hard time understanding is why thousands....thousands of people report these "things" every year. Why would you do this with that threat of being the "crazy lady who saw Chewbacca in her garden"? What are these people seeing and why would they make these stories up?
That's exactly it, I don't think that they are making it up. They have to be seeing something right? It certainly isn't me in their garden....or is it?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.