Sunday, November 6, 2011

TCH breakdown of Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage, the bright side of the coin



The Crypto Hunters, best known for their lightning-fast breakdown analysis of alleged Bigfoot videos have done it again. This time, they're taking a hard look at the Patterson-Gimlin footage. The P/G film was introduced over 44 years ago and has stood the test of time. For almost half a century, the film has been buried and unburied countless times by skeptics and believers.

It was once considered a hoax by some, but after careful scientific analysis of the creature in the film, experts are convinced that without prior knowledge of a "compliant gait" there is noway a normal personal should be able to walk like the P/G creature. The Bigfoot in the film walks with bent-knee, bent-hip gait and it is something that's incredibly difficult for a human being to duplicate without coaching says Dr. Jeffery Meldrum.

Also, according to Hollywood creature suit makers, the technology to make a suit look and act like the creature in the film did not exist in the late '60s and still doesn't.

In this breakdown video, The Crypto Hunters take a look at the conspiracy surrounding the two men who filmed the creature 44 years ago at Bluff Creek CA:


TheCryptoHunters.com Presents

The Patterson Footage: Fact or Faked!

Many things to consider in the never ending saga of the patterson footage.
Some high points include:
  • was patterson stupid enough not to pay Bob H.? Would he risk not paying the"guy in the suit"? or would he have paid him in a effort to keep the "hoax" going?
  • A suit have never been recover from the film
  • "Suit" has not been reproduced even with todays material.
  • A closer look at the footage.
  • and much more.

Thanks for watching.
Join the search at
www.facebook.com/thecryptohunters

26 comments:

  1. You could have made it even easier by just saying where would Paterson get the money to have a $5000 Hollywood BF suit made when he couldn't even afford to buy his movie camera, he rented it. Not forgetting that the technology didn't even exist back then to make the suit and to this day know one has been able to produce the suit or anything equivilent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good breakdown Tom.The evidence you provided is hard to refute.
    It's very easy to see all of the muscle definition in the entire arm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you look carefully at the photo in this article of the backside of the sasquatch, you will see what looks like a hood line a little below shoulder height. This looks like a costume hood that goes over the head. Also, I understand that the resolution on the enlarged photos is not good, but it doesn't look like the bigfoot has any toes on the bottom of the left foot that is lifted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't have toes, you are right. The prints they said came from the guy in the suit also do not match the print in the pic. Believers won't acknowledge that though, no uh uh.

      Delete
  4. "If you look carefully at the photo in this article of the backside of the , you will see what looks like a hood line a little below shoulder height. This looks like a costume hood that goes over the head. Also, I understand that the resolution on the enlarged photos is not good, but it doesn't look like the bigfoot has any toes on the bottom of the left foot that is lifted."

    well why don't you back up your claims and put
    a suit together with stuff avabile in 1967 and show how he faked it.simple way to prove your simple answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burden of proof belongs to the believers. Good luck, you still haven't PROVED ANYTHING since 1967. Haha.

      Delete
  5. Hey!! I never noticed that. It does look like there's a hood line across the back at shoulder level, and that foot does look like it's missing any kind of toes (or typical human/bigfoot foot shape for that matter). No primate would have squared toes, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yup, I thought the same thing about the foot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only personal that's been claiming its a hoax is the wacko Bob H. or whatever his name is and now his kids, because he got left behind and wasn't with Patterson/Gimlin when they filmed it. Let it go you frickin child, so what you didn't get picked to be on the team. Some of the top special effects people in the world and tons of other professionals have tried to debunk it and it still holds up. That tells me that they were 2 of the luckiest guys in history that caught a Bigfoot by surprise, slippin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Caught a bigfoot by surprise with no toes and a square foot?

    ReplyDelete
  9. From the other side, to me, if I was by the water in bare feet, my feet would be wet and pick-up an entire coating of sand and make my foot, toes seem dis-proportionate.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  10. A lot of sand might obscure the toes, but it wouldn't make the foot square. It sure looks like a foot that you'd see at the bottom of a costume. I also agree with the posters above who said that it looks like a hood line at the shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Those aint musels. it's so obvius. That's fome under the costume.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The idiots posting all the skeptic crap need to get a life. If you don't believe it leave it alone. I put them in the same boat as the morons that look at a random picture of the woods in someone's back yard and start pointing out all the sasquatch's that the personal didn't see. Oh look there's one here, oh wait here's another one. Get a life. Just like all the tools on utube that try and point out the granie blurs in their videos, SquatchMaster and his daughter, Timbergiant and so on. Say what you want and not to cheer for the guy but at least Fasano and his Bigfoot Buster stuff kept them in line a little or at least called them out. My point is if its not clear enough to wear it jumps right out of the scene and you can can see it plain as day DON'T put it out there and try shoving your CRAP down peoples throats. Same as with this video you can't see clearly that its a "hood or padding" or "the feet look square" because the quality of the video isn't good enough to see it so stop trying to add shit or take away from it just because A) your like Bob H. you didn't do it so you have to try and dismisses it away or B) your not going to believe anything people show you no matter how much evidence they have until you get off your ass go out and see one for your self.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lmfao, the quality of film isn't good enough to see a "hood" or "square feet" BUT it is good enough when you believers try and point out muscles etc etc?

      Did your mother have any children that lived?

      Delete
  13. Well said.

    The original quality of the video shows no conclusive close-ups. All these close ups we see now are digital enhancements, and could be the reason for a lot of these controversies. U either believe or don't.

    Skeptism in any field is good, and should be welcome in any researtch. This site, attracts just as many good skeptics as it does bad. Just choose what ones u wanna listen too.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  14. These kinds of arguments will never be settled unless/until a sasquatch is capture or killed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I still don't think one has to be killed or captured to prove its existance.
    With the work that discovery is doing on animal planet (finding bigfoot), and all the evidence that amateur research groups are bringing, and ones still under review, I think it is only a matter of time before we get another network to dump a whole bunch of money into a new research project. The amount of money and time that nat geo puts into its films (sometimes years) is all that is needed for bigfoot. Their dollars, their people, their cameras and a lot of their time. Could take a year or more, but they do it all the time. Set up camps for months, in the arctic, jungles.....etc just to get that winning shot. With all the new "page 2" headlines that have been popping up the last year. (Thanks to shawn for finding them :) ) we are very close.


    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  16. I did an enhancement on the foot.It looks like toes are there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you watch the entire film, at one point, there is a clear bulge in the muscle of patty's quadricep. It bulges quickly, about the size of a golf ball, then disappears. It looks like a herniated muscle. What's your explanation of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be keys or something else in the guys pockets.

      Delete
  18. Fome or pading moving under the costume.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah one golf ball size piece of foam or padding. Fail

    ReplyDelete
  20. Whe the fome or padding moved, it bunchs up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. the thing that gets me is,if your going to be such a sceptic why are you here on this website in the first place?usually a non believer wouldnt even come on this site..and you spell foam like this you stupid basterd FOAM your so educated to make calls on costumes.yet to stupid to spell....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, genius, you couldn't out spell a third grader either, congratulations you stupid BASTARD<<<<<correct spelling.. Its also "you're" NOT "your" and it's "SKEPTIC" not sceptic.

      I usually don't harp on spelling but since you did and you too suck so bad at it I couldn't resist.

      By the way, "believing" is not a requirement. Did your mother have ANY children that lived?

      Delete