Patterson BIGFOOT Film in Classic Horror Polls Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Patterson BIGFOOT Film

Author	Comment
Mike Mariano		#61	[-]
Jun 21 11 5:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	BennySabola wrote: "So you are saying that they had no way of making a suit without a collar in the the 1960's? " That is exactly what I'm saying. It's the entire basis for why I think the footage is authentic. And if you think that idea is hilarious-- prove me wrong. Shouldn't be hard, right? You're saying there was no way of making a collar-less suit in the 60s? Okay, from the liner notes of Meet the Beatles (1964): "They wear "pudding basin" haircuts that date back to ancient England, and suits with collarless jackets which they've made the newest rage." So there you have it--collarless suits worn by The Beatles, three years before the Patterson film. Is that proof enough that it could be done? Or does this mean that Ringo is.......... Sasquatch??? Last Edited By: Mike Mariano Jun 21 11 5:27 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
rvoyttbots		#62	[-]
Jul 22 11 8:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts
Crow T Robot		#63	[-]
Jul 24 11 7:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	He's truckin', like the do-dah man!
The Mighty Bongo		#64	[-]
Jul 24 11 4:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	BennySabola wrote; The only reason I believe the subject in the Patterson film is a living creature and not a guy in a suit is because no one could have made a suit that good back then. The suit doesn't look fake to me, compared to the ape men in 2001 or the Mugato or other well-known movie/TV ape monsters of the era. Not a single one of the monster movie fans on this site has produced one single image of a contemporary movie monster that looks real, specifically, has no collar, has short hair, has hair color that varies somewhat. OK Benny, Here is an example of one of Charles Gemoras suits, built in 1941 for the film "Monster and the Girl". This particular still was taken from the film "Who Killed Doc Robbin" from 1943. Please note that there is NO collar that you speak of. The head on this suit, like most of Charlies suits, snapped into place so that the head, shoulders, and back were for all intents and purposes one piece. Also this still is very well lit and extremely hi resolution, and you can't see where the head separates from the body. When Charlie moved his head there was no turning of a collar that you discribe. Also note that this suit featured water filled bladders in the chest and belly that moved and swayed in a realistic fashion, the way the Patterson subjects breasts supposedly move. The suit also had 4 to 5 different colors of yak hair blended and hand tied into the base of the suit, and the hair was trimmed to differing lengths just like a real gorilla. Blended fur color had been used for movie apes since the silents. To claim you can see variances in color on a figure where the film grain is so bad is astonishing. And just as a side note Benny, many proffessional gorilla suits have snaps or some type of fastener around the neck . George Barrows had snaps, Ray Corrigan , Janos Prohaska, Charles Gemora, Emil Van Horn, Don Macleod, and Rick Baker and a lot of others have used fasteners to secure the head so as not to have a "collar effect". Here is a shot of Emil Van Horn, where you han see the snaps around the neck, and on the head. Benny, you said " Not a single one of the monster movie fans on this site has produced one single image of a contemporary movie monster that looks real, specifically, has no collar, has short hair, has hair color that varies somewhat." OK, here are several, but the are not exactly contemporary. They range from the 40's and 50's. If these photos aren't enough, I have several hundred more. Chris Want to hang out with the ultimate party animals ? Come see us at; http://www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/ Last Edited By: The Mighty Bongo Jul 24 11 5:29 PM. Edited 4 times.
Babetician		#65	[-]
Jul 24 11 10:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm an agnostic, but the debunkers are just as phoney as the fakers, and always hurt their own case. Large amounts of money have been spent trying to make a matching costume. The best Hollywood costume design talents have been brought to the task, but have never succeeded. The British Broadcasting Corporation spent the most money so far. They failed miserably. The side-by-side results are shown below. Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities. If you hear about some debunking claims in the future, be ready to ask the obvious questions: • Where is the costume? • If the original costume is gone, why can't they make an identical costume and do it again? Why is that so hard? • Why does the news media always trumpet every half-baked "man in the costume" story that comes along without asking for the obvious proof, which should be so simple to provide? http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp
Babetician		#66	[-]
Jul 24 11 10:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Chambers debunking has been debunked. Multiple sources. http://www.bigfootencount...tures/burbankbigfoot.htm By axecalibore at 2011-07-24 Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 24 11 10:35 PM. Edited 1 times.
Babetician		#67	[-]
Jul 24 11 10:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Granted you can get a way better Bigfoot costume online than the one on the right, but it still wouldn't match the Patterson one.
Babetician		#68	[-]
Jul 24 11 10:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One person who seems to know how to make a reasonable Patterson suit right down to the sole of the foot. This might suggest duplicating the suit is not impossible, just unlikely. http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 24 11 11:22 PM. Edited 2 times.
Babetician		#69	[-]
Jul 24 11 11:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Munns with the ever popular neck question. http://www.floridabigfoot.com/?page_id=22
Babetician		#70	[-]
Jul 24 11 11:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	(I was dumb enough to mention to Rick Baker that the 76 King Kong suit seemed to have a collar problem, but that (if true) was almost certainly not his fault. That was when I was a dumb kid that didn't know when to STFU. He's a gentleman, and kind to the retarded fan.)
	Remove this ad
Babetician		#71	[-]
Jul 24 11 11:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 31 11 7:36 PM. Edited 1 times.
rvoyttbots		#72	[-]
Jul 31 11 10:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Babetician wrote: More stuff on Blevins. His suit seems to photograph well, though it has been said to look like a cheap Halloween costume. http://bigfootbooksblog.b...-unfinished-aborted.html DON`T CLICK ON THAT BLOG LINK! My computer was attacked and I had a heck of a time just trying to get my antivirus to run to take care of the problem.
Babetician		#73	[-]
Jul 31 11 7:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	! That's the last time I put up a link to anything. It passed Web of Trust, and the other 3 programs I have running, but nothing is safe. Should have known better. Last Edited By: Babetician Jul 31 11 7:37 PM. Edited 1 times.
Monsterpal		#74	[-]
Aug 7 11 8:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In regard to the claim that you have to come up with rigorously thorough evidence of costume making in order to debunk the bigfoot film: We know ape costumes can be made. Thousands of them have been made. On the other hand, there are no proven cases of ape men roaming western forests. Not one after all these years. Can you see my problem with the reasoning? Just because no one has made an exact duplicate in every detail of the outfit seen in a forty-four year old grainy film doesn't prove it's not a costume we're seeing. It would be extraordinary if it wasn't a costume. We all like to believe there are marvelous things in the world, but let's not let our sense of wonder carry us away to the point where we stand logic on its head.
Jethro Keane		#75	[-]
Aug 7 11 9:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One failed Patterson suit: Another failed Patterson suit: A third failed Patterson suit: Although the last one is far more yummier than any previous version seen thus far.
Babetician		#76	[-]
Aug 16 11 7:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Monsterpal wrote: In regard to the claim that you have to come up with rigorously thorough evidence of costume making in order to debunk the bigfoot film: We know ape costumes can be made. Thousands of them have been made. On the other hand, there are no proven cases of ape men roaming western forests. Not one after all these years. Can you see my problem with the reasoning? Just because no one has made an exact duplicate in every detail of the outfit seen in a forty-four year old grainy film doesn't prove it's not a costume we're seeing. It would be extraordinary if it wasn't a costume. We all like to believe there are marvelous things in the world, but let's not let our sense of wonder carry us away to the point where we stand logic on its head. It could be a fake. I don't think it's an obvious fake, and I don't think it was made by John Chambers, because John Chambers didn't think it was made by John Chambers. Also, that BBC "identical match" made me crazy. You are hero of the day for not saying "In regards to" with an "s".
Monsterpal		#77	[-]
Aug 17 11 12:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Give my regards to Bigfoot, Babe, and remember me to Sasquatch Square.
atenolol		#78	[-]
Apr 23 12 12:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree with Una O'Connor. There are monsters about and we will all be murdered in our beds. Have a good night.
MikeTheMook		#79	[-]
Sep 6 12 9:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I HAD to bring this up again, I just HAD to! So forgive me. BUT.... Something had struck me as odd, when I was watching an old episode of BONANZA a few years ago. I've seen the episode a few times since. Watched it again this evening. A very large man, much larger and taller than Dan Blocker, was featured in this episode. The same weird thing struck me again when I watched it this evening, every time they showed this large man, who played a circus strongman in the episode. Something about the way he moved. Where had I seen this man before? And what came to mind immediately? THE PATTERSON BIGFOOT FILM! The large man in question was none other than Robert Maffei, who has been mentioned in this thread earlier. A very large man, listed at 7' 1". I tell you, what was striking me every time I've seen this episode is the way Maffei walks and generally moves. I'd seen that similar gait somewhere else, but could never place it. He moves just like the "Bigfoot" in Patterson's film! Slightly hunched over, massive girth, and the way he turns his head a couple times in the show, looked similar to the way Bigfoot turns his head. While I WOULD be surprised to see anything absolutely proven one way or the other with the Patterson film, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out one day that the Patterson Bigfoot was Robert Maffei in a suit all along, which I now believe it was. A very good suit. But a suit nonetheless. The episode in question is titled THE ABDUCTION, and may be available on Youtube or elsewhere on the net. Anyone who is at all interested, take a look at this episode. Maffei is very prominent throughout, as himself with no makeup. I'd love to hear your feedback on this. Check out my NEW childrens story book! https://www.createspace.com/4065369 Please visit my online store at www.Cafepress.com/mwcoolpix for COOL photos and designs! Please visit my OTHER online store at www.Zazzle.com/mwimages for MORE cool stuff! Last Edited By: MikeTheMook Sep 7 12 10:11 AM. Edited 1 times.
classicboi1		#80	[-]
Sep 7 12 6:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I believe the footage is real and reason so is the long lenght of the arms.Ill always believe the film is a real Bigfoot.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Patterson BIGFOOT Film