M.K. Davis Enhanced Overlay With Patty And A 6-Foot-Tall Person
M.K. Davis has mad skills. First, he overlays Patty's walking sequence on top of a high quality P/G film background-- and now he takes things a bit further and overlays it on top of a background photo by Peter C. Bryne with a kid who's more than 6' tall. Check out how huge Patty is compared to the kid in the video below:
Give it up stop wasting your time with a hoax.
ReplyDeleteAs ushual skeptic stayed up all night in anticipation of Bigfoot news they don't believe in! First post again was skeptic! Let's see you actually take the film and do some real analysis instead of shooting from the hip like an novice!
Deletelol. It is funny how the skeptics are usually the first to post on these type of articles.
Deleteyour mom gave it up, thats why she spends her all her time trying to c*m for bigfoot.
DeleteNice childish remark! Anon 8;06! I bet your mommy is proud of you !
DeleteOh...THAT'S real mature. Ass-hat.
DeleteThey dont shoot from the hip, they shoot from the keyboard. Careful he will hit you with a CAPS LOCKS, he will really be telling you then. So, get off your fat a$$ and prove us wrong. See did it without a caps lock......
DeleteSome skeptics can't handle the possibility. It bothers them so much that they refresh the page on bigfootevidence to be first to throw in their nonsense.
Deletetypical skeptic anon idiot, that has no clue what is going on, this video has never been proven to be a hoax, the facts that the creature has characteristics of a living and breathing creature suggest that it's real so shut up.
Deletepresumes too much. what's the recorded distance to camera, size of lens, focus........
ReplyDeleteif ,ONE of these numbers is wrong, over 100+ feet, a difference of .1% can mean several inches
that is one point two inches at a hundred feet, rocket
DeleteThe boy used for scale is obviously NOT standing at the same distance from the camera: when the creature walks by all of the boys legs to his feet are visable i the frame while the creatures' legs from the knees down are obscured by the brush. The creatutres' legs are obviously indicated as much longer but the boy is also not a correct comparison. Owing to the perspective of the shot is is still possible that the hunched over, bulky creature's head is still on about the same level as the skinny kid standing bolt upright. But the two are not at the same distance from the camera.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the kid looks taller than the squatch.
DeleteThe kid really does look taller. So now MK resorts to sheer volume of size as basis for his.argument that Patterson is real. Lmao, yeah, a monkey suit and padding will make you appear much larger.
DeleteI thank MK for proving this hoax once and for all.
You're actually very wrong there troll and MK's totally 100% right in this, oddly enough Dale seems to misread it too. But anyway, Patty clearly is taller even away from the boy and she'd be even taller if close to the guy. Sorry asshats, even at telling distance dimensions you trolls suck big time. LOL Patty's quite clearly to be realistically estimated in the seven foot-plus range.
Deletethere was no massacre cultee
DeleteHow do you bungholers see the same picture the rest of the same world sees yet you somehow find a way to view it completely wrong? To much brown in the eye? (Browneye) Regardless of where this boy/kid is standing, the sasquatch is easily 300lbs heavier and much taller. The Boy is standing perfectly straight up, The squatch is hunched over as it walks. With that being said, the creature is still MUCH larger in size. I guess you naysay, er, uh, I mean "skeptics" will see what ever you want, and make it up to suit you as you go along.
Delete+100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Go away JREF girly men.
DeleteIts a man in a monkey suit.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteGiven Patterson's background prior to the footage, a modified costume is the most likely scenario.
Delete-2
DeleteA hoax is the most unlikely scenario, mostly because no one could do it technically (then or now) or had the necessary species anatomy info. Nor is our own species in any shape or form qualified for faking this other primate species successfully - that's just a biological fact we can't escape or ignore.
DeleteThe person wearing the costume is obviously a fat, overgrown human. This explains why the fake bigfoot is well over seven feet tall and in excess of 600lbs. It is also clearly obvious that the morbid, overgrown person has the "wolfman" syndrome; where hair grows all over their entire body. So, there you have it. Hairy, overgrown, morbidly obese person walking in the forest. The boy in the picture is obvious a hoax. Probably a cardboard cut-out. This is clearly visible by his thin, "two dimensional" frame. I am a skeptic. I am smarter than the average bear. You can't pull anything over on ol' me.
DeleteSigned,
The Smart Skeptic who can't be fooled by you silly, dumb ol' bigfoot believers.
a real sasquatch would have taken off up the hill, not walked accross the open flats like a guy in a suit would.
ReplyDeleteanyway a real sasquatch would not have got caught in the open by a couple of noisy cowboys on horses
They get caught in the open by highways with really noisy cars/trucks.
DeleteAfter crossing the creek bed it did go straight up the hillside. It had to get from point A to point B.
DeletePlus, Patty had that bulge in her leg that was most likely an injury. It's possible that she was in pain and that is why she was caught.
DeleteShe was heading towards a large male sasquatch that was standing just inside the tree line and trying to direct Patterson's attention AWAY from a small one over on her left. She was trying to get over by the big male just in case the film makers were to become a danger. No way is it a suit. Too much muscle definition and why add the breasts to a suit? There would be NO need to go that extra mile. You don't use a chainsaw to cut butter.
DeleteReally dumb argument directly above me when you KNOW Patterson the well known conman drew a female Sasquatch complete with Patty's infamous pancake titties just a year prior.
DeleteIts a horrible suit. Look at that diaper butt on it, look at the horizontal lines on both hips which is the suit scrunching up. Look at the entire ass section "shift" near frame 352 just as you'd expect padding to do. Patches of hair in places which no other primate has. Its all smooth flowing.
Sorry Timmy you know all your nonsense won't sway anybody here so you're basically wasting your time. The drawing you keep referring to isn't anything like Patty just a depiction of a female sasquatch. In fact I think you're sexist to suggest there should be no women sasquatches encountered, in order for this hominin species to live there needs to be that sex too despite your Western culture's traditionally shaped focus on machoism and male stunt men in bad monster movies. Your inane repetition of imaginary lines and pads make no sense it's just skin and hair. Can't be a suit anyway due to our species' build of the typical longlegged stature, the sasquatches on the other hand are more apelike in build i.e. longer top. Bingo: Patty.
DeleteAgreed! This "Timmy" character is obviously a sexist. I can't believe I didn't realize this. Great post! What is it with Timmy being infatuated with diaper butts? Is he a pedophile too? He obviously sees what he wants to see despite the obvious.
DeleteHow do you know what "a real sasquatch" would do? Obviously you must believe they exist in order to state "real." Ha-ha, JFREF dummy slipped up.
DeleteTo "real sasquatch/noisy cowboys":
DeleteAlmost all of the sightings report a creature walking nonchalantly away, showing apparent unconcern. You seem misinformed about that.
You've been warned not to run away from a predator, because it triggers their chase instinct? This probably accounts for the casual walking away so often reported hundreds of times.
The casualness may be to discourage or avoid being pursued.
Or it may be that their physical superiority over us makes us appear ridiculous and unthreatening to them.
The casual strolling away is a hallmark of the reports, not an exception!!!
--Zorro was here!!!
No one takes me seriously on this site but the reason behind why Patty was caught walking out in the open was because of a disease. If the creature was inflicted with a form of Alzheimers much like what we see in humans then that would surely answer your question. Lost, not knowing where she is, who she is, and she wouldnt even know why she should fear a human. Look closely and study the walk, the glance, everything about the nature of Patty suggests that in this short film. I wish people would at least consider this because it would answer so many questions that have been floating around for decades.
ReplyDeletethat would be convenient.
Deletewhy are other bigfoots not caught in the open with this mental illness?
I think because of the sheer small number of Sasquatch in the worlds forests as compared to the rarety of the disease in these animals is why we havent seen this. I think Patty was an extremely old Sasquatch that just lost her way.
DeleteThe breasts were very saggy. This is plausible.
DeleteIt could be that the bigfoot was confused and disorientated when the two men on horseback rounded the root ball of the downed tree and caught the bigfoot entirely by surprise.
DeleteIt could also be that a hoax is much better when the bigfoot walks away slowly instead of immediately running into the trees. It does not seem to act like what you'd expect when an animal is surprised. You'd think that it would immediately haul out of there as fast as possible into the woods.
No one takes anyone here seriously, well almost. Your comment is worth considering. I felt that she was leaving an area she didn't want to, like perhaps a child was separated from her with Gimlin in between, b/c she is so reluctant to continue and appears almost defiant? She could also be quite pregnant and unwilling to move too fast. The breasts strike me as possibly lactating, which might also indicate an un-weaned child around.
DeletePatty's behavior is actually that of a very typical human being, not some fat guy in a suit mind you, but because the sasquatches are indeed hominins. They aren't apes.
DeleteMaybe Bobo can leave some Prozac out with the doughnuts.
DeleteBobo would be more prone to leave some high grade Kush for the Bigfeets!
DeleteWhat?
DeleteThe boy is fake. It's a monkey in a boy suit. The kid is at least 10 feet further away, of course he's gonna look smaller.
ReplyDeleteLet's see your film breakdown ! Rent some equiptment and go there and come back to us and show us an overlay like MK did. Your comments have no merit because the skeptics never go through the work and time to debunk it. They just say " fake" or " Monkey Suit"! Not very convincing from your standpoint.
DeleteThats cause skeptics were not taught in school or by tv that bigfoots are real. They dont have the ability to think outside the box. So basically all they'er sheep.
DeleteI don't need a film breakdown. I can look at the overlay and see the boy is further away than Patty making him look smaller. It's called perspective, look it up. He may be taller or smaller who freaking knows they're not at the same spot.
DeleteAlso reread my post you fucking knuckle head I was being sarcastic.
Yes the boy is further away so why do some people say he's bigger? Because they haven't got a clue about how objects look apart. In reality you can tell from Patty being closer to us that she's actually the taller one and would be a lot taller than the boy if standing right by him. This is perfectly normal photographic knowledege, MK's analysis is spot on and faultless here again.
DeleteBecause he could be bigger, or smaller. There is no way to tell.
DeleteYou my friend are a genius. Using your reasoning these flowers are taller than the mountains. Brilliant!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/britain/goodphotos/land_foreground.shtml
Yes more PGF! I love of it, it's fun to read all of the posts after every PGF topic. It's very entertaining. There is a new technology (It was explained to me by a photographer) available soon that should put this debate to rest for good, it sounds interesting but I can't think of the name though.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is stabilizing software made by Adobe systems but I'm not sure.
DeleteIt still stands as the best evidence submitted, whether it holds up or not is in dispute. The National Geo breakdown was very good. If a fake, then is somehow surpassed the costume ability of the era.
ReplyDeleteThis will never be resolved without a specimen. Until then, all is conjecture. Nobody here can speak to what the behavior of a squatch should be or is as none have been studied. If a person has seen one for a passing moment it is hardly enough information to determine behavior.
Still awaiting hard evidence.
new anony
It's a man in a monkey suit.
ReplyDeleteYou're a bleever in a skeptic suit.
DeleteShawn should post the recreation Finding Bigfoot did in the same spot with the same camera and lens. Bobo wasn't as big!
ReplyDeleteChad W
MK did a great job on this but it's not convincing enough for me.
ReplyDeletePatty appears to be similar in height to the person, yet he looks further away in relation to patty's position.
Sorry you're wrong there SN it's extremely convincing in natural fact. The boy is further back so appears taller because he's higher in the image, but it's easy to see Patty is indeed much taller in natural fact away from him and would be a heck of a lot bigger than the kid if right up next to him. If he's six feet she's probably seven-something. Anybody with an understanding of photography will know this.
DeleteYou my friend are a genius. Using your reasoning these flowers are taller than the mountains. Brilliant!!
Deletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/britain/goodphotos/land_foreground.shtml
Sorry Anon at 1:41, that makes no sense at all. The boy is further back and would appear shorter if he and Patty are on level ground.
DeleteIf the boy is on higher ground,then this experiment is flawed. Wouldn't that be correct?
The person who took the photo of the boy would have to be standing EXACTLY where Roger Patterson was as well. If Patterson was crouched, standing or kneeling, the photographer of the boy would have to do that as well. If standing, then the photographer would need to be the same height as Patterson and would also have to use the same sized lens on the camera.
I know a bit about photography but I'm far from being an expert.
Your rationale is flawed in my opinion.
If you want to say I'm wrong, that's fine, but you better make sure I am wrong before you comment. If I'm proven wrong, I can accept that and admit it.
A few videos for Anon 1:41
DeleteForced perspective:
http://youtu.be/Y3Aqvn2qZNk
http://youtu.be/UtgT5XAYPA0
http://youtu.be/bLISe9E3jkg
Not everything is as it appears.
You're right about not everything is as it appears SN but you're definitely wrong about this issue. The two aren't even in the same position, the boy is further back and may appear big yet where Patty is she's also just as big if not already bigger meaning she'll be even bigger when she reaches his position. Common sense, try it sometime.
DeleteThings get smaller as they walk away from you dummy.
DeleteMaybe this simple exercise will help you understand. Hold your hand a foot away from your face. Slowly move it away from your face. Do you agree it appears to get smaller as it moves away from you. The same principle will apply to Patty. You got it now dummy.
DeleteOkay Anon at 3:36 perhaps you can show me an example of what you mean. Apparently none of get it.
DeleteYou make me laugh with your common sense comment. You continue to believe anything you like.
So do you SN you're no true bigfooter, I gather. Sasquatches actually get bigger as they approach you, simpletons.
DeleteAll of you simpletons are asscakes. I could care less about overlay this, dimensions that. Anyone with a brain cell (apparently most of you have none) can look at the kid and the sasquatch (whether real or not) and see that the sasquatch's massive size dwarfs this boy. Whether I look at a huge man and a small man standing next to me, or the huge man is standing far away from me, I have enough brains to discern how big the person's bulk is. This bigfoot simply dwarfs the boy. If you think otherwise, you are a nimrod.
DeleteYes anon 8:54 Patty is bulkier than the kid. Problem is nobody said anything about bulk fuckhead, we're talking about height estimates.
DeleteAnon 1:11, If you cant understand these simple principles it's not worth trying to explain. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to comprehend it.
You're still wrong, Patty's bigger no matter where she is.
DeleteDo you JREF closet footer bleever footers believe the suit has been found ?
ReplyDeleteit has been found, theres even a video of it
Deletethe video was shot by patterson in 1967, it shows bob hieronimous wearing the suit walking along bluff creak
Obviously someone not being too terribly bright as yourself evident by your credulity of Bob H's story, do you consider him passing a lie detector test on a TV show as the proof he was in the suit ?
DeleteThere's no suit anywhere and no suit found the film's the real bigfoot deal.
DeleteBob is wearing a blue suit; he has on a red tie and black penny loafers in the video. I done seen it. He actually got his shoes dirty while walkin in the sand and took them off. This explains how they casted footprints. Don't you people see this? I am a asscake/skeptic. It is so obvious.
Deletehow many years will pass before people give up the search for this mythical creature?
ReplyDelete10 years of no evidence?
20??
50????????
I can understand your embarrassment.
DeleteIt's over when the proof is found so who cares when, bigfooters don't care so why should trolls.
DeleteWith all the things coming together now you can bet it won't be not even 10 years, it's happening now for real.
DeleteThe splice in the film should settle the question. Two different takes. Its a man in a monkey suit.
ReplyDeleteWhat splice and who's pretending he's going to prove that one ?
DeleteSplice or no splice its a man in a monkey suit
Deletemonkey see monkey do - mentality at jref
DeleteThey lie to keep in good graces with the of the rest of the herd over there.
DeleteIt's only spliced because it's two sasquatches not one. Patty and a slimmer male, which visually makes good sense too actually when you know and realize a bit about this hominin species - the women are fat and the guys are thinner.
DeleteIts a man in a monkey suit.
ReplyDeleteAre you pretending not to believe ?
DeleteBob, roger and bob h all good friends and neighbours, roger worked on the suit with the help of a few experts for a while. There were some test runs, modifications were added, the film that has become the pgf you know was shot long before the supposed date of filming. When the film was ready roger rolled into that guys store "we filmed the son of a buck" and the rest is history.
ReplyDeleteI've moved away from the area now but I enjoy seeing rogers legacy live on. Its funny the things people see in the footage that roger hadn't even considered in his suit. People underestimate rogers ability to pull off a good hoax.
I once lived on the moon. I can say without a doubt that the American astronauts never landed there. I would have known. I lived there until I recently moved to Earth. I find it amusing how those guys who created that ol' moon hoax still get credit and glory for something they never did. I chuckle when I hear people giving all of the scientific data about a stunt that never even happened. Just some guys hoppin around in their back yard wearing some halloween spaceman costumes. They never dreamed it would go this far. Since they are considered heros here on Earth, they would never dare tell the truth now.
DeleteHah. Good one moon man. Your story is about as believable as the Bluff Creek boy who moved away. Actually, yours has more detail....so I believe you and not Bluff Creek Boy!!
DeleteI cannot believe the people who laugh at this and think this is a hoax. I am 6'4" and 315 lbs. Put me in a monkey suit and have me walk the same path Patty walked with sand and rocks and downed tree limbs and I GUARANTEE you I will be stumbling and off balance and not able to see good through the eye holes. I certainly would not be strolling gracefully along like I was on a sidewalk like this creature obviously is for as long as she did. She is at home. She is real. It is obvious to me but then I have seen one so I know they exist.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with that. Tall folks are so because of long legs primarily whereas bigfoots grow longer upwards, it makes their bodies more apelike than ours and literally impossible to fake realistically.
DeleteI like that overlay. Thumbs up!
ReplyDeleteinteresting breakdown and views of the butt crack.
ReplyDelete