The Patterson Footage .....

[the muntjac]

Follow the link in post #205. There's a video of him giving a presentation.

If you're picking up the contradiction from within that same video, Morris is saying he made a suit with breasts for some reenactment video where the director asks him if the boobs bounce because the boobs bounced in the Patterson video (the suit that Patterson added breasts to), and Morris replies there's no way the boobs bounce on the suit being used for the reenactment, and since they don't on that suit, he believes they don't on the Patterson suit since he also made that suit. He's not saying he added breasts to the suit seen in the Patterson video. He's just being a little confusing in the way he words it. He later sees that the boobs actually do bounce on the suit in the reenactment video as they do in the Patterson video. So in the end, the suits are consistent in their motions.

 

[BearGrounds]

If you're picking up the contradiction from within that same video, Morris is saying he made a suit with breasts for some reenactment video where the director asks him if the boobs bounce because the boobs bounced in the Patterson video (the suit that Patterson added breasts to), and Morris replies there's no way the boobs bounce on the suit being used for the reenactment, and since they don't on that suit, he believes they don't on the Patterson suit since he also made that suit. He's not saying he added breasts to the suit seen in the Patterson video. He's just being a little confusing in the way he words it. He later sees that the boobs actually do bounce on the suit in the reenactment video as they do in the Patterson video. So in the end, the suits are consistent in their motions.

He told the guy that the breasts he admits to not even making don't move because he made the suit. That doesn't make any sense. He also apparently didn't know what his own replica suit, which doesn't match the PG film subject, looked like while someone was wearing it.

 

[Jar of Flies]

I think Bigfoot is blurry; that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside.

 

[BearGrounds]

I think Bigfoot is blurry; that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside.

Lol I was wondering when Mitch Hedberg was going to make his appearance.

Here's a black bear I photographed with my smartphone a couple summers back.

With the naked eye I could see every detail in its face, and its different colored snout. The image, however, just looks like a black outline of a bear - "blurry" if you will. This is not surprising with forest lighting and dark coats of fur.

 

[choke you]

Gabe Gonzaga

 

[D Train]

I personally don't believe in such things. There's not a ton of undeveloped territory left in the continental US Or that hasn't been explored extensively anyway. We would have stumbled upon another one by now I would imagine.

Actually there is much more undeveloped territory than most people realize. According to a 2014 census, 94.6 of US territory is "rural, open space."

 

[rocketskates]

Actually there is much more undeveloped territory than most people realize. According to a 2014 census, 94.6 of US territory is "rural, open space."

Yeah, but we've explored a lot of it. I dunno man, it would be cool to find a cryptozoology creature, just seems like we would've found it by now.

 

[DoomPatrol]

If you say so broski.

Yeah well by that logic then aliens, fairies, unicorns, demons, loch ness, chupacabras, and dragons have a good chance of being real too.

I know exactly how much undeveloped land is in America, and ain't no giant monkeys running around that shit. You're crazy as fuck.

Apparently bigfoot is the hide and seek champion of the world, making it 15000 years without a shred of biological evidence.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

^Actual footage of @Kardashians


@Bobby Boulders should request a MOD put this in the stickied pic thread

 

[Andersons Foot]

I want to believe but there's such little proof, if any hard proof.

 

[JbModest]

nope, you need to explain how two idiot cowboys in the 1960's managed to create a suit that Hollywood today cannot do.

the muscle movements in the gif, in particular are extraordinary.

 

[Bob Gray]

I've thought about this a lot and I am basically unsure. The most convincing aspect to me is the hair and the fact that it clearly has breasts. Like who thinks to do that for a hoax?

But the face throws me off and makes me think hoax.


I honestly don't know.

How about the fact that a known con man set out out do a Bigfoot documentary and found Bigfoot in 5 minutes?

 

[the muntjac]

He told the guy that the breasts he admits to not even making don't move because he made the suit. That doesn't make any sense. He also apparently didn't know what his own replica suit, which doesn't match the PG film subject, looked like while someone was wearing it.

He worded it in a confusing way. He was saying the boobs couldn't bounce on the Patterson suit because they weren't bouncing on his reenactment suit, and since he made a suit he believed wouldn't have bouncy boobs, there's no way Patterson got them to bounce on a suit that Morris made. He later realizes that they do indeed bounce on the reenactment suit.

This is the most bouncy boob talk I've ever had in a non-sexual way.

 

[Bob Gray]

There is always, always, resistance in the scientific community to new discoveries, especially big ones. Sooner or later the truth about this is going to come out and then they will all say, "well yea they exist, it was kinda self evident wasn't it?"

And there's always people, even incredibly intelligent people, in any scientific community that believe things for stupid reasons. Scientists are still people, prone to the inherent bias and mistakes anybody else is capable of making.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

It's not like getting a scientific degree turns you into a Vulcan or something.

 

[Bob Gray]

You don't need every FX operation to make this claim, you just need the best of them.

Which they don't have. I don't see guys like Rob Bottin (The Thing), Rick Baker (American Werewolf in London) or Stan Winston (Predator, Aliens) or any other legendary, well known practical effects experts saying "not possible". You get guys like Bill Munn....who helps with museum exhibits.

 

[Egelo]

I doubt it, lack of dead body or some hair found that does not mach any know dna strain.

Could possibly be some remnant Neanderthal as they might have the intelligence to avoid men, but those fuckers never made it to NA if i recall correctly.

And to sustain a surviving pop, there would have to be plenty of them. So evidence would exist where there is none now.

 

[Bob Gray]

Try walking like that sometime, knees slightly bent taking long strides, forceful toe offs etc..

Let's be honest here. You've always seemed like a good dude and and a good poster. But you don't know shit about musculature, toe offs and normals stride lengths. I mean, neither do I. Nor does probably anyone on this forum save for perhaps a handful of people. People watch these "documentaries" and paranormal research shows and an "expert" comes on and says "The musculature and striding blongs of his glumptoo plumpees are clearly not faked".

Then you get a mess of people repeating it with absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Not because theyre' dumb, but because it makes perfect sense if you were already inclined to side with it.

 

[INTERL0PER]

Do you realize that $1,000 in 1967 was worth over $7,000 in today's money ? Where the hell did Patterson get that type of money ? Even if he did, who would pay that much for a guy to walk in a suit ? The numbers do NOT add up.

In the post you quoted, it talked about Patterson getting money from the movie studio he was making the Bigfoot film for. Yeah, $1,000 was a lot in 1967, but not that much to a movie studio. $10,000 would still be considered a micro budget for a movie back in 1967, so I have no hard time believing the studio paid Patterson a few thousand dollars, which he then used to pay the suit maker and suit wearer.

I've watched all the videos in this thread and have found very little of it compelling. I find it far easier to believe that Patterson faked it than to believe he found bigfoot.

I'm agnostic about the existence of an undiscovered large primate. But nothing I've seen convinces me that Patterson's video is anything but a well done hoax.

 

[INTERL0PER]

Which they don't have. I don't see guys like Rob Bottin (The Thing), Rick Baker (American Werewolf in London) or Stan Winston (Predator, Aliens) or any other legendary, well known practical effects experts saying "not possible". You get guys like Bill Munn....who helps with museum exhibits.

Exactly.

Look at the primates at the start of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was made in 1969. Those things are pretty convincing in a film made under studio lights, up close, with a great camera and lenses. Get whoever it was that made those costumes to make a bigfoot costume, film it outside, at a distance with a shaky 16mm camera and I think you'd get something easily comparable in quality to the Patterson footage... which, in my opinion, is too grainy and shaky to really use as any kind of concrete evidence anyway.

 

[INTERL0PER]

People watch these "documentaries" and paranormal research shows and an "expert" comes on and says "The musculature and striding blongs of his glumptoo plumpees are clearly not faked".