Forum - “Bigfoot” - Patterson Film Stabilized

0
Rob McConnell, the Executive Producer of The 'X' Zone Radio Show, emailed this:
quote:
Mar 27 @ 23:53
0
Hmmmmmm....

Well, the walk (gape) now seems more human like. However, the features are more detailed, and look real to me. "Gorilla suits" of that quality and detail were not available then. Plus, the creature is obviously female. I seriously doubt Mr. Patterson or his companions were capable of faking this.
Apr 15 @ 03:47
0
I'm really tossed about this one. First time I looked at the stablized version the thought that it looks like a person in a suit came to mind. Watched it a few more times and though I tried to keep an open mind about it, just can't get past the way it looks. [Sigh]

I realize suits like that may not have been readily available back then as you say PC, but there is still a possibilty Patterson or someone in his group got their hands on one, or even made one themselves. Not saying that's what they did but considering the type of costumes and such that were being used in films it's not out of the question. And though it would take much time and effort to make one from bear skins (or another animal) it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Makes you wonder if Patterson considered that one day someone may have the technology to be able to stablize the film, and show it in a manner as this that gives you a better look? The original version does make it harder to discern if it's human in a suit or not, and he might have banked on that version being the only one others would consider? I kind of found it odd the way this alleged bigfoot kept looking back as if it was looking at them. Considering how elusive these creatures have been, why didn't it dart into the bushes or run or something, why just continue to stroll along like that? If it didn't appear to have noticed them as it seems it did, then I could understand it just carrying on walking along the shore that way.

Did Patterson go back and try and capture more footage there at anytime, knowing that is where one (or maybe more) were? Did he or anyone else go to where it was walking and obtain foot print impressions, or try and find some hair/fur from it or any other kind of evidence at all? I can't imagine that was the first time it walked that shoreline, so surely there must have been something that could have been found? [Wink]

I would love to think that it was real and this is the holy grail capture for bigfoot enthusiasts, but just seems off to me, and I can't understand why more footage or photos, have not been obtained from this same area by anyone since? Knowing a location of where one can be found is half the battle. I guess I'm still not sure if bigfoot is even real or not, I waffle on this one. This is a live, breathing, eating creature, capable of leaving very tangible evidence behind. With technology as it is today I just don't understand why more evidence (solid proof) has yet to be obtained in any of the locations where sightings have been reported? [Confused]

[ April 22, 2006, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Cat ]
Apr 22 @ 06:38
Cat
0 +0
0
I agree, but let's play Devil's advocate. Yes, it is possible they could have made a suit. Based on the materials available at that time, it probably would have taken them months, or even years to perfect. It has a great deal of detail, including female breasts. Mr. Patterson was an ex-rodeo cowboy, and his collegue a hunter. Not to offend anyone, but is it realistic that he could have imagined or made such a suit?
The camera used falls into the same catagory. We are talking about the mid 1960's. There were not very many personal video devices available, and what was available was very primitive and basic.
As for the "creature's" behavior...who knows? I have seen bears and mountain lion walk off slowly, deliberately, as if they could care less about your presence.
I know that they did make plaster casts of the footprints there. I am pretty sure (not positive) that they did return at later dates, in hope of getting more evidence. The area where the film was shot is extremely remote, and not many people can get there, and fewer try to.
Finally, many animals were once thought of as myths or hoaxes, until it was finally proven otherwise. Such is the basis of Cryptozoology. The Mountain Gorillas of Africa were considered myths for centuries. The giant squid was just caught on film last year. The celocamph was thought to have gone extinct with the dinosuars, until a few were caught last century. Previously unexplored areas of Indonesia turned up hundreds of new species, and this was just a couple of months ago.

Just playing Devil's advocate. Frankly, I am not sure if I believe either. Just remember Proff Einstein - "Question everything!"
Apr 24 @ 02:12
0
I hear ya PC, I too have played devil's advocate with this one. A number of quotes from Einstein are among my favorites, and "Question Everything" is definitely in the mix. [Wink]

Will play DA (in sense) back on the questions/observations you bring to the table. I am enjoying this discussion/debate, thank-you. =)

Making a suit as this would be no easy feat, but not impossible. Speaking to their trades alone, a hunter is very knowledgeable in animal behaviour and appearance. Obtaining hides would be easy (w/o others wondering what you are going to do with it) vs one who would need to acquire same from another. Thinking in terms of the need for extreme secrecy. Not uncommon for career (and hobby) hunters to have knowledge and/or skills in taxidermy (sp?), perhaps the collegue did, which would have come in handy for assembling a suit. A rodeo cowboy spends most of his life around animals, blacksmith's, tanners, and would have access to assorted materials, skins and tools that could also be used for making a suit. Including what would be needed to construct the female bigfoots breasts. A little graphic to go into further detail but you know what I'm getting at. [Wink]

Taking months or even a cpl years to construct the suit, pick the location, devise the strut, get a camera and consider all sorts of details, is not an unreasonable thought. Nor is taking time to study (books, pictures, visting zoos etc) a variety of primates given bigfoot is often described as being ape-like in appearance etc.

Your right video recorders were rather primitive in those days, though not considered same at the time. The fact these devices were not commonly owned by individuals such as they are today, actually plays more into the hands of one who would want to construct a hoax that was captured on film. As does the quality of images these devices could produce at the time. I don't really see how a less than common device and it's quality lends support to why this isn't a hoax though? [Sigh] I can't recall but what was the reason they were videoing out in a remote area again, and why was the camera pointed (and zoomed in) at an empty shoreline? Was it sheer luck that a bigfoot happened along right at that time the camera was ready and aimed in that direction. Not saying things like that can't or don't happen (capturing something odd while shooting randomly etc), but given the size of video devices back then and they were not simply point and shoot types of today, it does make you wonder and question that. Did Patterson submit the entire film for review or just the big-foot clip? Who did he give it to originally?

Bears and mountain lions are not elusive creatures, they do venture into populated areas, have attacked humans, have been easily photographed, hunted and/or captured [Cry] , and video-taped in their natural habitats etc. No it's not that uncommon to see a bear or mountain lion walk off slowly or not care of a human's presence, but it certainly is for a bigfoot. What do they eat, do they have lairs, live in huts, caves? Has a baby big-foot ever been spotted? Not asking just a few of the many questions that come to mind. Considering ppl claim to have seen and heard them, photos/video obtained, and even reports of ones' being killed, they are obviously not only residing in remote areas that humans have not ventured into. What are cryptozoologists and zoologists saying about the Patterson film, or other scientists, researchers, and even professional videographers of the wild?

I agree many animals/creatures are mythical no more with their existence proved. And new unimagined species continue to be discovered. It is possible one day bigfoot will be in the books as a newly discovered species. Just seems odd we have failed to accomplish this yet, given most sightings did not occur in the depths of the sea, the remote moutains, or deep in the rain forest where other once thought mythical creatures have been found.

I would love for it to be proven, I won't say I don't believe at all, just hard not to be skeptical about this one. And as for the Patterson film, I just don't know. What have you heard/read about it? =)

[ April 24, 2006, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Cat ]
Apr 25 @ 02:42
Cat
0 +0
0
Oh you sure hit the nail on the head with "We humans are not as smart as we link to think!" I fully agree with that. We've accomplished much, made wonderful discoveries, and have some interesting abilities. However our list of errors is long, some of epic proportions with extreme consequences, we fail to even understand human consciousness and the many mysteries of the world and universe. Yet some, in the name of science, consider us to be highly intelligent beings with near full understanding of all there is to know, and what is and is not possible.

The paranormal is a good example, ignorance is plentiful on both sides of the fence, yet some behave and/or believe as if they are all knowing. But that is a whole other topic. [Wink]

Thanks for the links, I've been to some you listed but not others. Will definitely have look at them all. Well maybe not CSICOP's, though I browse it now and then, IMO the articles/commentaries of the pseudo-skeptics and cynics are often ramblings riddled with examples and reasoning that makes less sense then the claim they are bashing, false information, absence of critical information, and their blatantly obvious personal agendas. Besides it's narrow-minded, biased, prejudiced individuals like these who use their ridiculing, belittling and character attack tactics to keep the science community from accepting the paranormal, and individual scientists from wanting to research it. Making a mockery of the paranormal and citing those who believe to be delusional is their motto. Sure they will expose a fraud now and then, but so what, do they actually think most ppl don't already know, and maybe some like the entertainment. They are entitled to their opinions, beliefs and views and I do not begrudge them for that, but their continued attacks of individuals, calling those who believe delusional and even mentally unstable, attacking of others beliefs and life work, and working diligently to keep funding away from research and those who opt to do it, etc etc is what I have a problem with. Sorry for the wee rant there, I guess you can say I'm a bit passionate about things. I've been researching for some time and some of the literature I've read in science journals, pn journals and various related sites, is enough to see it's not just about a personal belief it's about personal agendas. Off the soap box now. [Embarrassed]

I agree bigfoot may very well be out there, and as noted before I hope it is found to be more than a myth. Who knows if they do exist they may well be a being that have some sort of an ability we can't begin to understand, which is why they remain so elusive? Or they are just excellent at surviving in a way that can be well camoflauged and basically undetectable? Just a thought. =)
Apr 28 @ 03:54
Cat
0 +0
0
Darn, I went there and I couldn't find it.

Right now he has a very serious topic at the top concerning how we use illegal weapons in combat and how innocent people are suffering from effects of those illegal weapons.

I tried looking all over the site (it's hard not to look at the horrible images of all those people harmed by our immoral actions) but I can't seem to find the video.

Kell, can you post where it has gone. Thanks.
May 09 @ 14:57
0
Hi Nakis,

I actually viewed this video on another site. I was doing some browsing, researching various pn related things and cryptozoology, and one of the sites I linked to from another happened to have the stabilized version of the Patterson film on their home page. It played the minute you clicked on the site. Sorry I can't recall which site it was though, I had browsed so many sites that day and a good number were links between sites. I had just watched it (numerous times) literally a day or two before Kell posted this so I didn't bother to view it again, who knows maybe it was this site, hopefully not as then there will still be a version posted elsewhere for you to see. I'll see if I can find that site again for you, perhaps I have even have it bookmarked. I have a ton of sites bookmarked so may take a bit to go through them all as some are titled differently than what you expect the link to be. Will do my best to find it for you though as I'd like to hear your take on this footage. =)

In the meantime perhaps Kell will be able to find out if this fellow still has the video linked somewhere on his site.
May 19 @ 18:48
Cat
0 +0
0
Here's an alternate URL to the Stabilized Patterson Bigfoot film footage[/URL]. (Hosted at Bigfoot Encounters[/URL] site.)

Kell
Jun 17 @ 05:04
0
Thanks Kell. I was able to see that one.

You just can't prove it one way or the other.
Primate developement could have produced a being like that.

One thing that really impresses me about the film is that the body texture. If that is a man in a suit then whomever did it deserves an Academy Award for special affects. At no point could I see any change in the skin that would reflect a suit. Through all the walking and twisting the skin acts just like real skin. If it was a suit it would bunch up at flex points like a suit coat would. When the subject is swinging its arms and turning back, a suit, no matter how good, would bunch up in the back area just behind the arm and below the armpit. The padding for the suit wouldn't act like flesh and not compress or flex right. Modern materials might make it look good but definitely not when when this film was shot.
Very impressive.
Jul 26 @ 11:20
0
at first thought I was not going to comment on this conversation. big foot is alive & well. he or she also is a fish eater.catching spawning shad etc. have seen this first hand. at the waters edge.
Nov 15 @ 23:45
0
I don't beleive the Patterson version..It looks so phony,in fact I thought the film had been proven a fake...Oh , years ago!..I beleive he exists, that he is a spiritual being...everyone's so set on seeing, or catching a "BigFoot"...you will never see him, unless he chooses to allow you to see him!..Some who say they have seen BigFoot, have not, and they know who they are...If a BigFoot allows you to be in his life ,feel honored..I beleive he is alive and well.. He's been around probably since the begining of time(just my opinion.).J.sunflwr360
Nov 19 @ 02:45
0
well J.sunflwr360 my first impression was the patterson film was a fake the very first day also. I personally have been able to see this creature up close' at waters edge. catching fish. it quietly got up and left.it's a large animal? matted hair orange & brown in color. wht about 300+ pounds about 7 foot tall. the indian legends know of this creature.
Nov 19 @ 13:42

Reply

Before replying to the topic, be sure you've read the rules.

You must be logged in to post a reply.