U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Maine
17,586 posts, read 21,564,719 times
Reputation: 20640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Think about this for a minute...if there was an effort to hide the existence of this creature, wouldnt it make perfect sense to 'debunk' a very clear video of one walking?
Think about this ...

Who in their right mind would be interested in hiding the existence of Bigfoot? What's the motive?

Might an actor having trouble getting his Bigfoot documentary financed have a motive to fake a Bigfoot film?

Which scenario strikes you as most likely?


Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Everything I have read on it, points to it being legit
Read more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
People that work in Hollywood and with animatronics,(spelling?), say it would have been impossible to create such a realistic suit at the time, plus, you can see the muscles ripple and tense as it walks, heck, you can even see a hernia on the backside!
False.

Rick Baker, the greatest monster maker of all time, said: "it looked like cheap, fake fur" and "a crappy walkaround suit."

And let's not leave out Stan Winston, another industry demigod, who said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" and "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." and he said that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day."

It's a guy in a suit, and not even a very good one. Look at the breasts. Totally covered in hair. No other primate is built that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
The 'walking gait' has been studied numerous times, and they have tried all sorts of different body types to replicate the gait and none can do it.
Buddy the Elf did.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:45 AM
 
12,864 posts, read 19,093,680 times
Reputation: 20850
The video - too much filler, starting with the Patterson Film from the 60's (yes it has indeed been confirmed to be a hoax-there are other threads in which it was argued back and forth, but sorry guys - hoax) and ending it seems with them selling T-shirts.
Is there actually a video in it? I only saw a picture of what looked like an ape that might have been taken in a zoo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,078 posts, read 4,004,672 times
Reputation: 9595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
It's a guy in a suit, and not even a very good one. Look at the breasts. Totally covered in hair. No other primate is built that way.
Because I suspect the hair would get in the way of breast feeding. Ptooey. #thinkbiology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
15,641 posts, read 12,545,237 times
Reputation: 11783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
Because I suspect the hair would get in the way of breast feeding. Ptooey. #thinkbiology
Actually that particular frame and one or two frames one way or the other of the enhanced Patterson film was a give away. One can see the top section of the suit turn while the bottom section did not. They were separate pieces; just look at the waist band.

I also have a problem with the eyes. I don't think the area around the eyes would be that visibly white or lighter in shade. It looks more like somebody cut a slit out of a hairy hood.

With other pictures of that video I had problems with the feet.

Of course I am talking about the elf!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Maine
17,586 posts, read 21,564,719 times
Reputation: 20640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
Because I suspect the hair would get in the way of breast feeding. Ptooey. #thinkbiology
I would post a bunch of photos proving this, but I really don't care enough to prove my point to do a Google image search for "gorilla breasts," "orangutan breasts," "chimp nipples," etc. Anyone who doesn't believe me ... you're on your own here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:50 PM
 
14,022 posts, read 3,719,704 times
Reputation: 9056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Think about this ...

Who in their right mind would be interested in hiding the existence of Bigfoot? What's the motive?

Might an actor having trouble getting his Bigfoot documentary financed have a motive to fake a Bigfoot film?

Which scenario strikes you as most likely?




Read more.




False.

Rick Baker, the greatest monster maker of all time, said: "it looked like cheap, fake fur" and "a crappy walkaround suit."

And let's not leave out Stan Winston, another industry demigod, who said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" and "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." and he said that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day."

It's a guy in a suit, and not even a very good one. Look at the breasts. Totally covered in hair. No other primate is built that way.




Buddy the Elf did.
HA, look at the back leg on Buddy the elf and compare it the Bigfoot (not even close)


Here is a recent digital reconstruction that focused on the gait...
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/15...tch-SamChp.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:55 PM
 
14,022 posts, read 3,719,704 times
Reputation: 9056
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
Actually that particular frame and one or two frames one way or the other of the enhanced Patterson film was a give away. One can see the top section of the suit turn while the bottom section did not. They were separate pieces; just look at the waist band.

I also have a problem with the eyes. I don't think the area around the eyes would be that visibly white or lighter in shade. It looks more like somebody cut a slit out of a hairy hood.

With other pictures of that video I had problems with the feet.

Of course I am talking about the elf!
Have you seen any 60s or 70s movies where someone is wearing a suit like this?


The ones I have seen look nothing like the creature in the footage. I think there was someone who tried to create a monkey suit similar to the one in the film (using modern suits and technology) and they tried to sort of recreate the motions in the film.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
15,641 posts, read 12,545,237 times
Reputation: 11783
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Have you seen any 60s or 70s movies where someone is wearing a suit like this?


The ones I have seen look nothing like the creature in the footage. I think there was someone who tried to create a monkey suit similar to the one in the film (using modern suits and technology) and they tried to sort of recreate the motions in the film.
Here is an enhanced version of the film: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...D44E&FORM=VIRE. In this one it is not as evident as the one I saw. Still take a good look at the eyes and nose around the 20 second mark in the film. There is also a point made about the white souls of the creature's feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:21 AM
 
Location: Maine
17,586 posts, read 21,564,719 times
Reputation: 20640
^ It's a guy in a suit. A fairly decent suit for the time, sure, but still they did not understand some basic facts about primate anatomy. It is OBVIOUSLY a guy in a suit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:25 AM
 
12,864 posts, read 19,093,680 times
Reputation: 20850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Have you seen any 60s or 70s movies where someone is wearing a suit like this?


The ones I have seen look nothing like the creature in the footage. I think there was someone who tried to create a monkey suit similar to the one in the film (using modern suits and technology) and they tried to sort of recreate the motions in the film.
No, I don't buy that. There have been tons of pre-70s movies with monkey suits, space alien suits, monster suits of various and often better quality than the patterson film (which mitigated the imperfections of the suit with grainy and shaky footage)....it's nothing strange or unique. The guy that designed the patterson suit worked in hollywood. Heck you can probably find a silent movie example that looked just as good.
You cannot re-create the motions in the film to scale, as there is no scale to compare it to. I think there were some foot prints that were captured by...you guessed it, Patterson.
Look at the sophistication of the man-ape monkey suits in 1968's 2001 A Space Odyssey during the Dawn of Man sequence to see it done right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top