hey guys i have a website youll think is interesting

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

Woah! Amazing page! Good for bigfoot lovers! I guess it's really out there, huh?

'Ol Footy goes "hi-tech" digital. Well, I hope he finds what he's looking for.....thanks for the link.

Whoa Bigfoot has junk in the trunk.

Yep, that cryptid got back.

its pretty convincing once u see the true face. certaintly doesnt look human. plus theirs many places to hide for it. the nw is very unexplored, and quite a large area. some videos i feel cant be faked by conventional techonology, and are too real. the muscles in the p-g film are consistent with a real gorilla

nahh, its not. all the claims are bs with no evidence. plus film analysis points toward its being a real creature

more like a pseudoscientist. have u ever seen legend meets science? it practicaly debunks the possibility of bigfoot being a suited human

ok u have ZERO evidence that it is a guy in a suit!!! its been almost 40 years since roger patterson filmed a real creature. their are scientists who conclude that it cant be a suited human. the technology back then was way too primitive

Didn't Patterson himself claim it was a hoax??

Wasn't he a known fraudster?

Credibility lacking.

I believe it is his son, or the son of the other guy, who is claiming it is a hoax. And since the principles involved are dead, there is no way of ever knowing the truth. The son claims it was his mother in the suit, IIRC. I simply don't know what to believe.

Yes, but why should THAT amount to a hill-o-beans?

all these rumors are bs with zero evidence. all those people who claim to have been the guy in the film dont have any evidence, just unreliable testimony, like bob herminous

I'm confused. First he says he has a hydra, and he's trying to disprove bigfoot?

You're a scientiust...
But you don't use capitals or punctuation?
For god's sake, I'm 13 and I use both!

the film has been scrutinzed many times, and it still stood up to even the best scientists

Also, if you look at the photos of the man who said he was in the suit from the same year, he's twig-thin! He would've had to take some powerful steroids to make him look like tat sasquatch. "A muscle suit!" You might say, but hi-tech(for the 60s') hollywood stuff like that wasn't commercialy available, as far as I know.

I think we should feed this thread to your avatar.

you have absolutely no proof its a guy in a suit. again thats your opinion. so is mine. i think scientists could tell the difference btwn a suited human and a real flesh and blood primate. as of now, the film is real

He went to the grave claiming it was real, even on his deathbed. Another possibility is that he was hoaxed himself and had no knowledge of it, but as you said he was a thief and a con-man so it doesn't matter to start with. The video is tainted before you even start





Well actually in the early 70's their was a special effects producer/director from hollywood that said IHO they could not recreate a suit like that, but its null and void seeing as the video came from a con-man to start with.





And you have no proof that it was a Sasquatch, in fact their is no proof that they are even real.

So what if a few scientist say its real, I could find more that think it a fake.

Now if a body is ever found, and its exactly like patty then your argument might have some weight. Until then its a con-man and a thiefs video showing something, no more no less. What that something is I don't think we will ever know and will still get talked about in another 50 years

Fake or not, I'll give creds for Paterson to actually show us what (might've been) a bigfoot looks like.
There was this old scientist guy on TV I saw nearly a decade ago examining this film. He's an acclaimed human physiologist and anatomy. He sometimes helps the cop to solve a mysterious crime.
Basically this man concluded that the creature on Patterson's film are far from suited human. Notice the walking movement and he hand swaying method. If you ever see the footage, you'd notice that its hands are swaying freely, not like regular human in suit, which will still maintain it's hand swaying method (left hand-right leg etc.) in accordance to his leg movement.

I myself am not a scientist, I'm a law advisor and I worked wth several criminal case and ended up in several visums. I learned a thing or two about human physical behavior, especially when they're performing act of frauds or criminals. I only got two strong points which will help the footage's credibility: there are no such costume or suit available at that times. Notice the great difference between this suit and how ugly is a suit from movies at that times. I watched all the Planet of the Apes and other Sci-Fi from the time and still, such suit is impossible. I also have movie making experience and specialized in Sci-Fi and action movie costumes. Check my 'bass-playing demon' costume on another thread. That was me in suit.
The other thing is that this footage was examined thousands and thousands of times and still, people get confused and unless the men in that suit (if it's a suit) was both scientist and professional suit actor, that creature is real.

An oh, I know Patterson did some other fraud to boost his fame, like the footprint cast things, but this film is the best he can came up with.

Funny, me and the wife happened to be talking about the Patterson Film last night. I was pointing out a few things to her that actually makes me pretty curious and if any of you here happen to have any ideas they surely are welcome. If I recall correctly, this film was made back in 1967on 10-20. Back then I am guessing that they did not have any real type of sophistacated hand held video cams. I am guessing that Roger Patterson used something like 8mm film. I'm sure that there was no type of zoom on the cam so what you see is basically what he saw. Now, Couple of curous things. Why would a guy go to all kinds of needless trouble to fake a bigfoot sighting. Note the word needless. I very much doubt he would be able to look into the future and know there would be ways to zoom in on the film frames. Back then the best someone could do would be to use a magnifying glass. I am really shocked at the facial detail that went into this "suite". Again, why go to the trouble. Even if someone could prove it a fake he would most likey be long dead and unfortunately it was soon than later.

Most of the time when someone fakes a bigfoot sighting it is easily spotted mainly from the type of suite they use. The ones that have tried to recreate the Patterson footage have all been long haired costumes with a very fake looking head peice. You would think that even with todays technology we could make one look even better. For some reason we can't even come close to what Roger saw. Why go to all the trouble to pain stakingly put makeup on a face that most would not even be able to see close up? It is very apparent to me that the face is not a mask, but at best a real face of a real bigfoot or at the very least someone who spent a great deal of time and money creating facial hair, a fake nose ect. Not liely and in fact down right impossible even if he did have the money.

Roger could have saved a buch of time and money (assuming the FX was available which it wasn't) and just as easily filmed Bigfoot from the rear the whole time. Oh, and why in the heck would he go to the trouble of making breasts on this thing? I can think of no (good) reason although I have heard a few bad ones. This thing did not walk like any man that I have ever seen. Again, why go to that kind of trouble. I would assume Roger not smart enough to even fake this part of the film. I am referring to Bigfoot's gait. Why can't someone of today just go out and recreate this to almost identical proportions in all aspects?? Even the bottom if "it's" feet look real. I have seen this video many times thru out the years and I really can not find anything that makes it look fake. If it was that easliy faked someone would have done it again by now. Far as I know Roger went to his death bed and claimed it real and the other guy Gimlin has never publicly come out and said it fake although there has been a lot of talk about him and others saying it was, but it has always been 3rd or 4th hand info that someone swears to God they know it to be true. Out of everything that I have ever seen this is the only IMO real evidence that Bigfoot exists.

(Why am I posting on a Bigfoot topic?)

Try speeding the footage up just a wee bit.
Looks like human to me, Billy Bob.
Billy Joe, yer right on that one.
Billy Bob?
Yea, Billy Joe?
......Huh?
.........OH MY FREAKIN' GODFREY! IT'S BIGFEET!
Uh, that's a log.
Oh. Well let's take a photo of it from an impossible distance, and to make the thing more soapfisticated, let's shake the camera while we're takin' the photo.
Man, Billy Bob, yer a gebius.

Ok, Jellyfish, you set yourself up for this one. I’m 13, and yes, I try to be as literate and learned as possible so people can easily understand my writing. Let’s point out some errors in this first post here. Ahem. Scientist is not spelled scientiust, unless Fatrobot really is a scientiust, which I have never heard of.. Try not to begin a sentence with ‘but’, and always, always capitalize God’s name even if you are an atheist, which I am not sure if you are or are not.




Ok, second post fun time. tech(for is not a word I can say I am familiar with. Tat? Do you maybe mean ‘that’? Hollywood should be capitalized because it’s a proper noun, you spelled commercially wrong.

I’m 13 just like you, Jellyfish, I’m pretty sure I’m younger than you and most of the people on here, in physical age that is. For God’s sake, I’m 13 and I spell correctly, punctuate and guess what, I even capitalize.


As for that link at the first page of this thread, that looks pretty cool, almost like they could make a video game with it. Please don’t close down this thread because of this single post that was off topic mostly.

well i saw on history channel that they tested a hair sample of a yeren and it was proved to be an unknown species.