The 50th anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage

>you will never catch the Skunk Ape while shooting in the Everglades on large format with Clyde Butcher

FML

>>3138991
Real or fake /p/?

I saw a picture of me smiling once
Didn't believe it not for one second

>>3139014
Depends.
If you think of it as a hairless ape in a hairy ape suit then it's not fake.

Thought this was an interesting article:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2095096/man-who-created-bigfoot

>>3139031
i fancy myself a fancy bigfoot expert weirdly enough and i know everything about the patterson film. the question of ligitamcy completely relies on that damn suit. is it a real animal? is it a great suit? is it a bad suit that looks really good because it was filmed with shit camera technology that misses all the detail?

if it's a suit then why does it look so form fitting when even hollywood costumes at the time couldn't replicate that? why does it have breasts? is that proof enough based on the absurd idea that a hoaxer would think to add them? was patterson brilliant enough to think one step ahead of that and include them in the suit just to make us ask that question?

the beauty of the patterson-gimlin footage is that the more you look at it, the more questions are raised rather than answers.

>>3139107
You're a photographer, just look at the way light reflects off the hairs.

Then realise that it's a fresh, clean, nylon suit. Without question.

File: AB12986.jpg (38KB, 478x612px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 478x612px

>>3139124
an apes hair can be very reflective in direct sun but you're right that the shine of the coat may be the most suspect part of the video.

I'm always paranoid that I'm gonna be editing my photos after a day of shooting and realise there's like a creepy figure in a window or something.

>>3139124
The biggest piece of evidence against the footage is the circumstances with which it was made.
1) Ray Wallace, who began the bigfoot craze in the pacific northwest, was later found (after his death) to be a compulsive liar and to have faked most or all the tracks he found.
2) Roger Patterson was dying of lymph node cancer and was desperate for something to make money off of.
3) Ray Wallace told Roger Patterson where to go to shoot the footage.

These things convince me that the footage was faked, even without analyzing the film itself.

>>3139014
whatever it happens to be, it's THICCC either way.

>>3139107
The Patterson Gimlin footage is absolutely real. Zoomed in you can see the ligaments move in its leg.
Look at them tiddys swing. Im sure we've both browsed /gif/ enough to know they're authentic hangers.

File: 641F2CBF-9500-449A-AFC5-5DFAFD891044-1633-000002F4813EEA0C.jpg (113KB, 800x498px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x498px

>>3140868
All I know is no one has ever found or reproduced the suit nor can anyone explain how a couple of hicks made a better suit than Hollywood was capable of making

This is from the planet of the apes which was released one year after the Patterson Gimlin footage.

>HURRR BIG FOOT
>BIG BIG MONSTER
>BIG AMERICAN MONSTER AMIRITE LIKE MONSTER TRUCKS HURR
you guys and your shitty folk mythologies are beyond retarded.

>>3140874
You're fucking retarded if you think Planet of the Apes is evidence of anything.
One is a film, where anthropomorphic apes speak and ride horses.
With costume design intentionally making the apes look as human - therefore sympathetic as possible.

The other is 10 seconds of bad footage from a shaky camera with the intention to mislead some dumbass like you.

>>3140896
You don't know much about the research that's gone into researching and attempted recreations of the suit. No ones been able to do it with anything approaching the look of the original. The flexing and moving of the muscles in the Patterson gimlin footage shouldn't be possible with costume technology of the time. Even Hollywood special effects people that were working in those days don't understand how a suit like that would have been made with the technology of the day.

>>3140896
>e horses.
>With costume design intentionally making the apes look a

They had a $5.8 million dollar budget in 1968 and these are the costumes they come up with? But a couple good old boys made a "costume" that looks a million times better? Not to mention the gait at which it walks.

Taken from Wikipedia...

Film industry personnel
Movie production companies' executives

Dale Sheets and Universal Studios. Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley[235] screened the film for Dale Sheets, head of the Documentary Film Department, and unnamed technicians[114] "in the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood ... Their conclusion was: 'We could try (faking it), but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible.'"[236] A more moderate version of their opinion was, "if it is [a man in an ape suit], it's a very good one—a job that would take a lot of time and money to produce."[237]


Disney executive Ken Peterson. Krantz reports that in 1969, John Green (who owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film)[238] interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film."[114][233][239] Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film, there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so. Greg Long writes, "Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972, where Disney's chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson's footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio. When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California, 'They shook their heads and walked away.'"[136][240]

>>3138991
If it's fake then it's the single greatest fake of all time. 2 guys with practically no money supposedly made fake Bigfoot that no one has been able to conclusively confirm or deny for 50 years. One is dead and went to his grave maintaining that is was genuine and the other still says it's real. No one credible has come forward as the person in the suit. No one has found the suit. No one has recreated the suit. No one has produced any footage or images even halfway good as the Patterson gimlin footage. I know Patterson was a piece of shit human being but damn.

I don't have the picture on my PC but I once shot a long exposure of the Grande Canal in Venice and noticed some kind of weird fox statue in one of the windows. Not that creepy but eh best I can offer

>>3140911
The point is the costumes for that movie were never intended to look like a realistic ape.

They were intended to look humanoid so the viewers could project human emotions on to the non-human characters. They even spoke fucking English.

Your conclusion that because something wasn't done, means it couldn't be done is wrong.

>>3141087
But those same special effects people said they wouldn't have been able to recreate the suit.

>>3138992
you'll never catch anything because all you do is wank over gear

File: Nightman cometthh.jpg (86KB, 805x1006px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 805x1006px

If there's no proof showing it's real, then it is fake. But if there is also no evidence of it being fake, then will that fact that we can see evidence of its existence, prove, by default, that it is real? Why make such a fuss about the possibility that creatures/cryptids like these are out there? Wouldn't the idea of these creatures' existence allow us, or rather compel us to further our research into finding such species? Why is it that the idea of the world being round in the dark ages was eventually proven true when many tried to insist otherwise, and the idea of "fairy tale" creatures existing is still up for ridicule? I'm not much of a believer in fairy's and pixies but why is it hard for certain scientists to just accept the fact there are creatures we have yet to learn about despite all their knowledge derived from textbooks and studies? I feel that allowing a bit more research or at least some consideration of strange cryptids existing would allow us to look in some right directions.

But I'm no scientist and this is just my opinion.

>>3141226
>If there's no proof showing it's real, then it is fake.
Retarded

>But if there is also no evidence of it being fake, then will that fact that we can see evidence of its existence, prove, by default, that it is real?
Also retarded

>Why make such a fuss about the possibility that creatures/cryptids like these are out there?
Ya, who cares whether or not there's a giant undocumented ape species in North america?

>Why is it that the idea of the world being round in the dark ages was eventually proven true when many tried to insist otherwise, and the idea of "fairy tale" creatures existing is still up for ridicule?
Everyone has known the earth was round for thousands of years before christ. The idea that anyone thought the earth was flat is a meme that won't die.

>why is it hard for certain scientists to just accept the fact there are creatures we have yet to learn about despite all their knowledge derived from textbooks and studies?
No scientist alive denies there are species still to be discovered but there is no logical step between that and a giant woodland ape living in our forest undetected for hundreds of years.

>I feel that allowing a bit more research or at least some consideration of strange cryptids existing would allow us to look in some right directions.
No one is stopping any research.

>>3141090
exactly. And no one is even addressing the wikipedia post citing the film industry personnel that said the suit couldn't be recreated at that time.

File: arms_comparison.jpg (40KB, 321x227px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 321x227px

I remember watching this recreation on tv years ago and laughing how bad it was. And it was done by the bbc in 1998!

>>3141226
>but why is it hard for certain scientists to just accept the fact there are creatures we have yet to learn about despite all their knowledge derived from textbooks and studies?
Because there have been no remains found of anything resembling an upright walking ape in the Pacific Northwest? That might have something to do with it. If there is no history of it in that area, and no evidence other than the one presented here, what is the most logical step?

>>3141226
>I feel that allowing a bit more research or at least some consideration of strange cryptids existing would allow us to look in some right directions.

Here's an idea. How about we equip nearly every person in the country with a small device capable of recording video and still images, and have them carry that device around them at all times wherever they go. Then, if these cryptids are truly real, we should be inundated with footage of them because every hiker who comes across one will have their trusty video recording device at the ready.

(Cellphones. I'm talking about cellphones)

>>3141377
yeah, it was quite a few years before the miraculous technological innovation of sticking hair to a bodysuit would hit the scene

>>3141485
large animal carcasses are rarely found. it's also speculated that they tend to their dead. either hiding the corpse or possibly even burying it.

>>3141491
at this point no one would believe any pictures or video. no matter the quality it would be dismissed as a hoax. nothing but a body will do at this point.

File: mammalia_phylogeny.jpg (189KB, 653x923px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 653x923px

>>>/x/

>>3141497
>large animal carcasses are rarely found.
Not true

>it's also speculated [...]
"speculated" is the problem here. We don't even know this animal exists, so if there's a 50:50 chance for its existence at best, speculating about its behavioral patterns is not even worth the effort. It's the same as speculating about behavioral patterns of yet unkown extraterrestrial life.
No proof = no hypothesis.

>nothing but a body will do at this point
DNA samples of an unknown mammal would be interesting enough. Latest new species found in Mammalia was some rat if I remember correctly. So far, all samples that were supposedly connected to sightings of an unkown large primate were found to match Carnivora. There is strong evidence, both morphological, as well as molecular, that Carnivora is a monophyletic group noteably distinct from other Mammalia. Considering the amount of molecular data analyzed by that time, it's highly unlikely a sample of a primate is incorrectly placed in any other group.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:08 15:29:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	653
Image Height	923

>>3142335
Check out the brain on Brad!