Patterson Film?

[xfactors]

Anyone see the documentary last night on the Discovery Channel on the Patterson film?

They seemed to conclude it was hoaxed.

They pointed out the bottom of the creatures feet were all white indicating a suit.

I think it was hoaxed as well...the big fat rounded padded rear end on that thing looks like a costume to me.

But one thing that is intriguing are the breast's...did they really think of designing that into the suit?

Discuss...

[Paul]

1967......

Have you seen any of the movies from that era? Let's throw in the 70's as well. I don't remember ever seeing any monster on film that looked as real as patty.

I just can't get past how real that thing looks. I also cannot fathom how in 1967 someone could have created a costume and filmed a person in a costume that in 2007 still looks real. If I look at ANY movie from the 80's back special effects are "cheesy" at best.

That's why I find it difficult to argue against the PG film. If anyone has any input to get me around that obstacle I would be willing to join the skeptic camp on that film.

[darrenbonk]

I saw a documentary on the Patterson film and it showed close-ups of the creature. You could see the fabric of the costume gathering on the creatures right side. Its well done but still a fake

[Paul]

So if it's a fake why don't we have a bunch more nice, clear, long videos of BF like that? They only had the technology in 67? I would think that if someone could make a suit look so realistic in 67 that others should have been able to improve on it over the years and hell, someone could have hoaxed an entire documentary by now! But still all we get are out of focus glimpses?!?!

[darrenbonk]

Because as the fraudster technology improves so does the technololgy to catch them. Like I have said in previous posts...... they can find an ant in a piece of amber thats 10,000 years old but can't find one BF bone in all of BC. Not one has been shot or even video taped clearly. As for Todds Video 2. He says it was caught "by accident" If you watch it closely the camera pans down and directly on the "creature" which conviently has its back to the camera(This is because the most difficult part of the costume to make look like a BF is the face. ) That was no accident. Then, the second the camera is on the "creature" is conviently ducks out of sight. Once again.....no accident. Now Todd is reluctant to release video 3 and subject it to the same scrutiny. Where is the transparency?

[Paul]

Why not more films in the 60's, 70's and 80's then? I don't know of any other BF film that's been talked about so long. Were those the only guys that could create a suit and film that appears so realistic?

Oh and why would they waste their mastery on one BF hoax? Wouldn't they have been able to make much more money in the film industry by cranking out movie after movie. If it was fake they were waaaaaaay ahead of their time in the FX business.


*EDIT*

You know what would help me to consider that the film was a hoax? Show me one film from the 60's where a man in a suit looks that realistic. Until I see a reference from a 60's film, it is an undistbutable non human bipedal animal.

[darrenbonk]

Patterson and the other guy were actually in the woods that day attempting to capture footage of BF and lo and behold they do. Coincidence? By the way they were writing a book on the beast. If you believe that is indisputable proof then there is no way I will be able to convince you. Todd claims his video is scientific proof and I disagree with that also. For these creatures to exist there would have to be a large population, in seperate groups. Why is the only proof of their existance poor quality video. Myself and the scientific community will not be convinced until we are shown a body and that has yet to happen. I've watched the Patterson video and it is quite interesting but to me not indisputable.

[Paul]

I'm just asking for some help coming to the skeptic side. All I need is to see a film from the 60's that shows a man in a suit and looks that realistic. That's all I need, can you think of anything from then that might help me?

[darrenbonk]

I have to admit that the Patterson film looks authentic. However, it is still not enough for me to say that this mammal exists 100%. I still have my doubts although my mind remains open. If it is a stunt I must say its a real great one because the creature does look genuine. Paul-What is your opinion of Todds video 2?

[rev7]

Has anyone looked at the enhancements done by MK Davis??If not you should.Dont just brouse them WATCH them!!I see a living, breathing,old,matted,creature that wanted nothing to do with the stinky thingyroaches that we are.For the love of god will you people stop your constant bickering about this hoax and that zipper and get your lazy asses out in the feild and bring back some evidence so your film or whatever, can be put under the microscope...im outta here, off to northern California for 3 weeks to be with them... fools!!!

[Paul]

darrenbonk said:

Paul-What is your opinion of Todds video 2?

In another post I said at some points it looks like a man in a suit and at other points it looks like a bear, regardless it is just (to coin a phrase I once read) another "squatch-blob". The footage is too dark, out of focus and short to be meaningful to anyone watching it. Although, if I were the guy who filmed it I would feel much more confident in what it was that I filmed.

[Paul]

rev7 said:

Has anyone looked at the enhancements done by MK Davis??

Yes, good stuff!

rev7 said:

For the love of god will you people stop your constant bickering about this hoax and that zipper and get your lazy asses out in the feild and bring back some evidence so your film or whatever, can be put under the microscope.

I'll be out in the woods next weekend and the weekend two weeks after that. The only thing is that I don't look for BF. Don't want anything to do with chasing an animal like that around through the woods.

[dansquatch]

The PG Film is still the only piece of footage I find believable. The rippling muscles, tendons clearly visible, the warn fur patches suggest the creatures in molt, the imperfect pendulous breasts, huge padded feet etc... Of the thousands of reported sightings if only one is legit then the creature dose exist..Remember Chewbacca is the best Lucas could do in 1977 with a budget , the monkeys in 2001 are the best costume you will ever find..

[malyss]

darrenbonk said:

I have to admit that the Patterson film looks authentic. However, it is still not enough for me to say that this mammal exists 100%.

I'm still not sure why your opinion is so important in the grand scheme of things. Who is it you are representing here?

[darrenbonk]

I represent myself and other free thinking people who are skeptical of persons who present scant evidence and call it "scientific proof". If you want to be a sheepal and fall blindly every so called expert who has a 5 seconds of shakey video which is out of focus go ahead.