Atlantis Online
September 17, 2019, 05:18:38 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Hunt for Lost City of Atlantis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3227295.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Newly Stabilized Patterson Bigfoot Film Released

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Newly Stabilized Patterson Bigfoot Film Released  (Read 107 times)
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« on: March 06, 2016, 06:09:50 pm »

++


The Gasp Menagerie: Newly Stabilized Patterson Bigfoot Film Released

Posted on July 3, 2014 by Mr. Dark



The Gasp Menagerie: Newly Stabilized Patterson Bigfoot Film ReleasedThe Patterson-Gimlin film is the holy grail of cryptozoology. It’s just that simple. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it goes like this: In fall 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were out looking for Bigfoot.

Patterson had rented a 16mm camera to both hunt for Bigfoot and search out locations for a potential fictional film about the beast.

As Gimlin and Patterson rounded a corner in a dry creekbed, they and their horses spotted what can only be described as a Bigfoot. Larger than a man, covered in fur, with a loping, strange gait, the creature walks away from the men. Patterson gets his horse under control, grabs his camera, and begins shooting. The result is the most compelling evidence of large primates in North America that has ever been collected.

Everyone has seen the film or stills from it. Now, on YouTube, from user Greenwave2010fb, we have a series of videos created from the Patterson-Gimlin film. Using new software, the film has been stabilized so that maximum details of the subject can be seen. (Note: We’re not sure if this user did the stabilization or is reposting video from another source.)

Bigfoot

The primary video, a stabilized version of the best frames of the film, clearly shows the details that have intrigued cryptozoologists for decades: the pointed saggital crest (top of head), the long thigh and arms, the swaying breasts…

Yes, the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot is a female. The breasts are impossible to miss in this stabilized video, and to me they’re the lynchpin to proving this is real footage of an unknown creature.

Let me elaborate for a minute.

There is a great deal of debate about this film and its authenticity. Much of it stems from Patterson’s stated goal to make a Bigfoot film for Hollywood. The guy set out to make a fictional film with costumes and actors so this is that film, right?

The breasts are the biggest reason why I say no.

Think about it for a second. If you’re going to fake a Bigfoot film, why make the beast a female? Breasts are very difficult to create realistically in a suit of this sort. The way they move under the fur would have been extremely hard to simulate using 1967 costuming. Why add difficulty to a hoax? Why not just make the creature male and avoid the hassle? Psychologically, it doesn’t work at all. It makes no sense. It only works if this is actually a female primate.

Back to the video, this provides a much better view than the shaky, hard to watch version I grew up with. You can see the muscles moving under the fur. That’s still something so difficult to do that we use CGI for it; it’s not worth the effort to do it practically. You can see movement in the hands, which, when the arm bones are measured, do not match up with human anatomy. And yes, you can see those big hairy double-d’s swaying with the walk.

It’s long been claimed by several people that they created this suit or could create it. FX genius Stan Winston, God bless him, stated it was a “cheap monkey suit…” and yet never duplicated it. In fact, nobody has ever duplicated the Patterson-Gimlin film. Attempts have been made, and the efforts have been laughable. Even using budgets unavailable to Roger Patterson and materials unavailable in 1967, no one has yet been able to reproduce every aspect of the beast in this film.

Check out the videos below and see what you think. If it’s a hoax, how?
Report Spam   Logged

Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2016, 06:10:29 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2016, 06:10:58 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2016, 06:11:12 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2016, 06:11:39 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2016, 06:11:55 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2016, 06:12:28 pm »

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/54532/the-gasp-menagerie-newly-stabilized-patterson-bigfoot-film-released/
Report Spam   Logged
Blacklands
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1099



« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2016, 06:13:03 pm »

If the bigfoot Patterson and Gimlin filmed in Bluff Creek was a hoax, it is one of the best hoaxes of all time.
In case, the ape-suit is among the best ever made, far ahead of the monster-suits we can see in horror movies from the sixties, as good as the best today in fact.
The muscles can be seen flowing under the furry skin, indicating conciderable weight, and very good knowledge of anatomy.
The creature in the film is estimated to be about 6 feet 8 inches tall, and if it is a suit, it must weight in at 40-60 pounds at least, a heavy load to bring many miles into a remote forrest.

According to Wikipedia:
"The footage was filmed alongside Bluff Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River, about 25 logging-road miles northwest ofOrleans, California, in Del Norte County. The film site is roughly 38 miles south of Oregon and 18 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.[2] For decades, the exact location of the site was lost, primarily because of re-growth of foliage in the streambed after the flood of 1964. It was rediscovered in 2011".

If one man was behind this hoax, would he choose a remote place like Bluff Creek for showing off his masterful ape-suit?
At a remote site like Bluff Creek, he would possibly have waited for several days or weeks for someone to show up, like campers, hikers, loggers or hunters.
And many would bring guns like rifles so deep into forrested areas, there are mountain lions in this parts of California, so wearing a monster-suit in a forrest is not a very good idea, you cannot really blame someone if they shoot, especiallly surprised at close range.
Would it not be much more likely a hoaxer with a masterfully made ape-suit like this would show it off for instance at a hiker trail close to populated areas, where he can be sure it will be people every day, who would see him?
It is temtping to say if this is a hoax, most likely Patterson and Gimlin was a part of it. But Patterson passed a polygraph test, and people who knew them said they did not like to fool, trick or do pranks on others.
According to Wikipedia:
"Several university based studies and professional evaluations have concluded the subject cannot possibly be a man in an ape suit".
This keeps me facinated about the possibility of an unknown creature living in the vast forrested area of North-America, Russia and Central. Asia.
Even if I would like to see Bigfoots for real, a part of me hope they never get caught, it is like a secret I would not like seen be taken from mother nature hands by us humans.
Cheers.
Report Spam   Logged
Bigfoot
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 354



« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2016, 07:45:59 pm »

Where is the problem that Roger went looking for a Sasquatch and found one? Gimlin and Patterson were in the Six Rivers area for weeks before stumbling upon her. This has been rehashed a thousand fold so no need to start this debate now. And we do not know for certain if human relics had hairy breasts. And Patty is most certainly an ancient human relic, not an undiscovered great ape such as a Mountain gorilla etc.
Anyway the latest stabilizations are simply amazing, and show an astoundingly crazy looking creature. Very chilling.
Report Spam   Logged

Bigfoot doesn't believe in you.
Bigfoot
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 354



« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2016, 07:52:17 pm »

Bob Gimlin is a major figure in all of this. He's the last man alive to see this creature, the only somewhat believable evidence of Sasquatch. Gimlin was several dozen yards away from Patty and could smell her and see the whites of her eyes...his words. I met the man. He is not a liar.
Report Spam   Logged

Bigfoot doesn't believe in you.
Bigfoot
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 354



« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2016, 07:54:47 pm »

There are however a host of difficulties and inconsistencies with Hieronimous' story, at least as many as with Patterson's:

http://undebunkingbigfoot.blogspot.com/2013/11/debunking-claimed-bigfoot-cosume-hoaxer.html

I think the one thing that can be said with any certainty is whatever Patty is, she's not just a horsehide and fake fur with some football padding underneath.
Report Spam   Logged

Bigfoot doesn't believe in you.
Bigfoot
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 354



« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2016, 07:55:44 pm »

They said patterson was broke and desperate but somehow come up with a lot of money to have this state of the art - better than hollywood suit made. uh huh


"Several university based studies and professional evaluations have concluded the subject cannot possibly be a man in an ape suit".
Report Spam   Logged

Bigfoot doesn't believe in you.
X-File
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2126



« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2016, 10:55:42 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
X-File
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2126



« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2016, 11:02:58 pm »

BTW, if it was a man in a monkey suit.... where's the suit?  psyche101 says it cost about $450 but that was a lot of money in those days. THis man is supposed to be broke, and he had to also pay the man in the suit. BUt he was broke. The man who claims to be the man in the suit has no suit, did not identify the maker of the suit and has no evidence. He could be lying. Also, A hollywood set director who was around in the 60's and saw the stabilized version said hollywood had no such stretch cotstumes back then.
Report Spam   Logged
X-File
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2126



« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2016, 11:03:47 pm »

Here's an interesting article with interviews and a likely conclusion:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy