Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

[AL Pitman]

The only thing wrong with it is that I didn't take it !

[ripperton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWFiGWx3-4
This MK Davis less than a mile from where the PGF was shot.
At 12 minutes, looks like a juvenile playing with a plastic bag.

[Shazzoir]

Hot damn, I'm convinced. Never saw that footage before now, excellent find. Thank you for this, wow.

Shazz

[Searcher]

Good one, ripperton. I hadn't seen that before. Either M.K. Davis and his mates are hoaxers, which I don't think they are, or they have captured some highly unusual footage! Unfortunately, as we have come to expect, the shot is nowhere near as sharp as the original PG film.

[ripperton]

Good one, ripperton. I hadn't seen that before. Either M.K. Davis and his mates are hoaxers, which I don't think they are, or they have captured some highly unusual footage! Unfortunately, as we have come to expect, the shot is nowhere near as sharp as the original PG film.

Thanks but its kind of embarrassing that its 3 years old and 3 people on here havnt seen it yet.
Then again MK didnt even spot the "foot" for a year or so.
I believe MK when he says he was the first person in the group to get to that area, everyone else was behind him.
Yes very strange footage the way the foot is playing or folding the plastic bag.

[Black]

Ray Wallace chose bluff creek to lay his big feet impressions because there were already bigfoot stories associated with the area. Roger Patterson chose to film in bluff creek because of those stories and because of Wallace's bigfeet impressions.

It's like going into the australian bush in Hazelbrook or Kilkivan. Your chances of running into australias bigfoot is exponentially increased.

But the stories attract hoaxers. Its human nature.

[ripperton]

Even if Patterson was associated with hoaxers and had dubious intentions himself, it doesnt exclude the possibility that he just got lucky and actually filmed the real thing. The PGF just happens to have more yay sayers than nay sayers.

[Black]

Yay sayers vs nay sayers to decide if patty was a hoax? How very unscientific! I'm sure life was way better in the 1500s when the Earth was still flat!

Here's a question: What did Roger Patterson's horse (he was riding), do, when he rounded the corner and came across Miss Hairy Breasts?

[ripperton]

Well actually the yay sayers are the scientists and the nay sayers are the flat earthers.
Extract from Wiki.
"Patterson estimated he was about 25 ft (7.6 m) away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon sensing the figure, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson ... imlin_film

[Simon M]

I think it's a bear as well.

[Shazzoir]

Bears don't have legs and feet like Bigfoot 'Patty" though, they have a more pronounced ankle joint, and massive legs, that are far bulkier than Patty's and with very different muscle mass areas. They also are not capable of sustained, upright motion in such a fluid walking style.

[media]https://youtu.be/-6r81UOzIHg?t=47s[/media]

[inthedark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWFiGWx3-4
This MK Davis less than a mile from where the PGF was shot.
At 12 minutes, looks like a juvenile playing with a plastic bag.

With respect, it's so obviously a hiker fiddling with a map. I'm surprised they even attempted to sell this as anything else.

[inthedark]

Even if Patterson was associated with hoaxers and had dubious intentions himself, it doesnt exclude the possibility that he just got lucky and actually filmed the real thing.

Going with likelihoods in the absence of empirical evidence, what are the chances that a known 'con artist' just happened to get that lucky?

So remote that it defies my (limited) maths.

[ripperton]

With respect, it's so obviously a hiker fiddling with a map. I'm surprised they even attempted to sell this as anything else.

It has some very human body language (arms) but the thing its folding is clearly a plastic bag and its uniform brown coloured.
MK says he unwittingly walked right past it. If it was a hiker they would have said HI or something and probably wouldnt be wearing
brown jeans, top and gloves.

[Simon M]

Bears don't have legs and feet like Bigfoot 'Patty" though, they have a more pronounced ankle joint, and massive legs, that are far bulkier than Patty's and with very different muscle mass areas. They also are not capable of sustained, upright motion in such a fluid walking style.

Sorry, I was responding to the comment about the 'tree thrower' being a bear and must've missed all the other posts.

My bad.

I've no idea what Patterson filmed. Like every example in this thread, it's potentially a fake. Of all the moving images reputed to show 'Bigfoot' that exist, though, it's still the most interesting one to me. It's fascinating, whatever it is.

[Simon M]

...I do think, however, that there's really no way of discounting The Patterson/Gimlin film or saying it's irrelevant. It's become too much of a phenomenon in its own right to simply be put aside and forgotten, whatever you think it really shows.

It seems to have taken on cult status, hoax or not, so it's not going anywhere. The walk and the famous 'look over the shoulder' have been so often imitated it's become like an indelible stain on the whole Bigfoot/Cryptid Zeitgeist. It's probably the only thing most people in the mainstream population even know about the entire Bigfoot subculture (I guess that's the term?), so I don't think we can easily ignore its presence.

Sure, we can discount it in our own heads and make decisions about its veracity - but it's going to be with us until something much better comes along, and that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon.

[Simon M]

With respect, it's so obviously a hiker fiddling with a map. I'm surprised they even attempted to sell this as anything else.

It has some very human body language (arms) but the thing its folding is clearly a plastic bag and its uniform brown coloured.
MK says he unwittingly walked right past it. If it was a hiker they would have said HI or something and probably wouldnt be wearing
brown jeans, top and gloves.

We only have this guy's word regarding what this video really shows. We don't know that he's shown us the entirety of what he actually recorded that day. We don't have access to that information. We have only what he's chosen to show us.

It may be that he's selectively edited the video. For all we know, it was a firefighter who said hello to them ten seconds after that video was taken. Or a hiker. Or a Park Ranger having their lunch. Or someone who was with them at the time who helped them create a fake 'Bigfoot' video. We have no way of knowing and no means of finding out.

We also know that the area is open to the public. We only have his word that the figure wasn't a person, or that they were 'unsupported by a vehicle'.

It's possible he noticed that part of the video while he was editing it, and thought it might get some attention on his YouTube channel if he just showed that section. All he'd have to do was leave out the part where the person spoke to them, show some random pictures of his mate staring into the bushes, and then record a voice-over.

I know I sound cynical, but I've seen so many things that are dubious, any video of 'Bigfoot' is guilty of being a hoax until proven innocent in my view.

We also know that the area is open to the public. We only have his word that the figure wasn't a person, or that they were 'unsupported by a vehicle'.

It's way too dodgy for my liking. I didn't see a single thing that convinced me that wasn't just a person sitting there. There's not even a shred of doubt in my mind that it's just someone sitting by the river.

[ripperton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WzeIZ-2Jck
I dont know where to put this vid so as its another MK Davis, Il put it in here.
Go to 5m 50 seconds and theres a white looking straight into the camera.
It has "pretty eyes" !! so Il call it a she but her hair is messed up beyond human.
Unusual that a squatch would get in front of a camera like that but I cant pass it off as a surfer mate or chick.

[ripperton]

This forum needs work. I cant edit posts and it is changing words for me.
I write mate (d u d e ) and it writes mate.

[Shazzoir]

Yes, the edit function is only active for ten minutes - after that, you can't edit a posted post. That was brought into being after people came back to threads, sometimes months later, and deleted all their posts, which made following the thread almost impossible, so that feature was disabled.

There are also a few words that trigger replacement, and most of those are curse words/swearing, but maybe that one is to reflect the Aussieness of this forum, since d u d e is a very American word, not that there's anything wrong with it. '

Shazz

[inthedark]

it's become like an indelible stain on the whole Bigfoot/Cryptid Zeitgeist.

This, exactly. A stain I'd love to remove!

[inthedark]

I didn't see a single thing that convinced me that wasn't just a person sitting there. There's not even a shred of doubt in my mind that it's just someone sitting by the river.

Ditto, 100%.

[Simon M]

Regarding that second Davis video...I'd honestly have no problem at all identifying that as a garden-variety human being playing silly buggers with the camera. Whether or not it's a cow or a horse in the background - that's clearly a person messing around with a camera they've stumbled across. I'm not seeing anything that's inexplicable or unidentifiable.

As always with these things, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Unless I see video of something I literally cannot explain or identify, I'm going to assume it's either a deliberate hoax, an honest mistake or pareidolia.

[themanfromglad]

Patty's muscles and breasts don't bounce around like a human's, because of much, much, lower body fat. Any questions?

[MW83]

"Patterson Film: New processing of the “Look Back” produces an epic clip from the film." :

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/20 ... -the-film/

[inthedark]

Patty's muscles and breasts don't bounce around like a human's, because of much, much, lower body fat. Any questions?

Yes!

Lack of bounce is also a feature of fakery

And unfortunately, the body fat idea is not reliable. It's not related to body fat, it's related to elasticity, and elasticity decreases with age. A 20 year old with body fat may not bounce, whereas a 50 year old with no body fat will.

[Simon M]

"Patterson Film: New processing of the “Look Back” produces an epic clip from the film." :

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/20 ... -the-film/

I still can't see anything that definitively proves or disproves what this film shows. It could be someone in a costume. There's nothing I'm seeing that rules out that possibility. It's still intriguing, and I enjoy seeing these kinds of kinds, but I'm still not 100% sure what's in that film. The film shows a figure walking away from the camera. That's all I'm sure about.

[ripperton]

Have we seen this one yet ?
its also been on YouTube for 3 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIBuyJs35sI

[Simon M]

All we see is a figure walking on a hillside. The figure is so far off it could be anyone and there's nothing that directly links the walking figure on the hill with the still images of the prints and the chewed-up watermelons, etc.

My impression is that this is as fake as all f***.

What's needed is decent quality video/images that reveals details and indicates that what we're seeing couldn't possibly be human. Literally every video I've ever seen could easily be someone in a suit. I'm not going to consider any video as being potentially genuine until I see a level of detail and clarity that cannot easily be dismissed. It boils down to the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' principle.

That video might be the real McCoy for all I know - but I wouldn't bet money on it, because it doesn't show us anything that a hoaxer couldn't replicate with relative ease.

[ripperton]

What's needed is decent quality video/images that reveals details and indicates that what we're seeing couldn't possibly be human.

You mean like PGF