The Patterson Footage .....

[KILL KILL]

Read my post above. Hollywod tried and failed to make a believable simian creature in 1976's King Kong. 8 years after The Patterson/Gimlin video.

Hollywood had no issues making Chewbacca. TS is cherry picking his evidence. On the Wikipedia page alone, there a bunch of make up / costume designers that agree that it looks like a costume (albeit a good one).

 

[KILL KILL]

wrong ! several studios and even the BBC tried to make the suit and they couldn't.

No studio tried to replicate it. A few executives said they couldn't do it, but many costume designers said that they could. Your evidence is cherry picked my friend.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

it has stood the test of scientific, technological scrutiny.

 

[DevilsLettuce]

Hell, I've got one of those suits.

 

[The Sausage King]

Yep. Absence of evidence is evidence in itself. That's the first rule of science shit.

You're using a false logic. In this case you have men who claim to have captured a bigfoot on film. When the video was analyzed from an anthropological, technological, and scientific point of view, it was not possible to deem it a fake.

I'm not claiming it's 100% real, but given it has withstood all the scrutiny placed on it, it stands out.

 

[MedicineDog]

Hollywood had no issues making Chewbacca. TS is cherry picking his evidence. On the Wikipedia page alone, there a bunch of make up / costume designers that agree that it looks like a costume (albeit a good one).

Chebacca walks like a man. The Patterson GImlin footage contains a gate that is not replicated.

 

[KILL KILL]

You're using a false logic. In this case you have men who claim to have captured a bigfoot on film. When the video was analyzed from an anthropological, technological, and scientific point of view, it was not possible to deem it a fake.

I'm not claiming it's 100% real, but given it has withstood all the scrutiny placed on it, it stands out.

Let's just agree that it's 47% real and move on.

 

[thebluerider]

ITT I learned there seems to be some correlation between thinking Donald Trump should be president, and believing in Bigfoot.


Somehow I'm not very surprised.

bigfoot must be another russian plot bro!

 

[Thai Domi]

Swamp gas.

 

[NHB7]

Read my post above. Hollywod tried and failed to make a believable simian creature in 1976's King Kong. 8 years after The Patterson/Gimlin video.

They weren't trying to remake the Patterson film. They were making something totally different. They also didn't have the luxury of making a very blurry film to hide obvious flaws in costume making at the time.

 

[Jayzer193]

Why doesn't it have a butt crack?

Lol... someones lotion is getting cold.

#desensitizedpornjunkie

 

[LiLoMMA]

ITT I learned there seems to be some correlation between thinking Donald Trump should be president, and believing in Bigfoot.


Somehow I'm not very surprised.

Savage

 

[KILL KILL]

Lol... someones lotion is getting cold.

#desensitizedpornjunkie

wut

 

[drstrangelov]

Chebacca walks like a man. The Patterson GImlin footage contains a gate that is not replicated.

The gait thing doesn't hold water, there's no other Bigfoot footage to compare it to, so the fact that a guy couldn't exactly recreate another person (or creature)'s gait only tells us of limitation in human to human imitation.

I've seen lots of people imitate the ministry of silly walks sketch, but there's only one john Cleese, and I doubt even he could pull it off at this point.

 

[SSOTO]

The butt crack is clearly there. My cock is a witness.

 

[sh1tehawke]

 

[Matt M]

The fact that Patterson was a notorious conman pretty much destroys this instantly.

I'm all for conspiracy theories, i'm very interested in them and I think some of them are legit, but you need to look at the sources.

When you have an airline pilot who's flown thousands of miles say he saw a UFO, then you believe him.
When you hear a notorious conman say he saw a man in an ape suit and claim it was Bigfoot, you tend not to believe.

 

[Pittie Petey]

Pretty sure thats just Dutch Mantel and his legendary hair sweater

 

[MedicineDog]

They weren't trying to remake the Patterson film. They were making something totally different. They also didn't have the luxury of making a very blurry film to hide obvious flaws in costume making at the time.

They were however, attempting to make a believable simian creature. The Patterson footage has muscle movement beneath the fur. Watch King Kong...it's clear that you have mega muppet. I understand whysomeone would not put credence in the video, but if you see my original post, you have not addressed my points. Why the quad injury? Why female? There are high def versions where you can see these attributes clearly.

Conversely, the larger question pertaining to the existence of the australopithecine and/or gigantopithecus is whether there is enough genetic diversity within such a species to maintain the survival of said species. If they are so few and far between, it would be extremely difficult to maintain a find a mate and therefore, a healthy population.

Again, it is entirely reasonable to doubt the video, however, it is true that special effects professionals and biologists have not been able to refute this video or disprove it. Research all you want, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED.

One final point...In October 1902, Captain Robert von Beringe (1865–1940) shot two large apes during an expedition to establish the boundaries of German East Africa. One of the apes was recovered and sent to the Berlin Zoological Museum, where Professor Paul Matschie (1861–1926) classified the animal as a new form of gorilla and named it Gorilla beringei after the man who discovered it. The mountain gorilla wasn't discovered until 1902...species are discovered all of the time, even until today. Granted, they are spiders and fish and smaller animals, but there are still many remaining questions about the skookum!

Also, unicorns exist.

 

[MusterX]

To this day, it has never been proven false. The numerous hoax claims have been discredited, and I believe it is legit.

Special effects professionals to this day say they can't make a suit that has muscle movement and hair placement as real as that footage.



I believe most of the Bigfoot videos out there are fake, but I believe the Patterson footage - which just so happens to be the most famous - does show a unique animal. I believe Bigfoot may no longer exist, but faded out - but that Patterson and Gimlin caught one of them on video. I hope this thread evolves into solid debate from both sides, with good evidence being brought fourth.

Have you seen any of MK Davis' breakdowns of the footage. Based on the hair, the musculature, the breasts, the movements, I'm about 80% sure that a real creature. No way in hell that's a suit and especially not from the 1960's, we wouldn't be able to make one like that now probably in 2017. I'll post a couple of his videos and a link to his channel if you like. Some of his work with the Patterson footage is very good.

He has many breakdowns of the footage but for example in this one, check out the musculature of the animal throughout the video, in the back, in the triceps, look at the calf muscle at :24. that is no suit man.



Here is one where he looks at some specific frames, a really good one of the foot at :52, you can see the pad of the foot and all 5 toes. Look at the musculature under the hair around the shoulder blades at 1:29. If that's a suit its the best one ever made by man and it was done in the 1960's.



Anyway, here is the link to his channel, he has done a ton of work on the Patterson footage and you will find a lot of breakdowns for it. They are all well done.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Greenwave2010fb/videos