Stabilized bigfoot film
The infamous Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film has been stabilized frame-by-frame to give you a better view of the lumbering woodland beast.
A similar stabilization technique was was used on the Zapruder's film of the JFK assassination.
the latest
latest episodes
Monkey suit.
Wow. It really becomes apparent that this is a fake when you can see how human the gait is.
That is a man in a gorilla suit.
Man. I love technology.
He looks pissed off and defiant.
Pretty sure this is a re-post.
ChineseJetPilot, you are correct.
Repost. Same link. Even from the same poster.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/02/stabilized-bigfoot-f.html
Now BoingBoing, don't get me wrong I love the site and all. But don't you guys ever check your own archives?
I too was struck by how obvious the fakery is the moment you see the film laid out like this.
I love it. High tech image stabilization presented as, er, an old-school animated GIF!!!
As others have noted, the stabilization makes it just that much more clear that the footage is of a guy in a fur suit..
It's John Goodman.
And the Zapruder film is even more brutal now that it's stabilized.
The Zapruder footage.
Yeesh. THANKS, Boing Boing. Now THERE'S a king-hell bummer for the week....And just in time for the elections! Wheeeeeee!!!
I don't even remember posting this the first time. Help me.
Yes, is the same post, but it has been stabilized for your confort.
Hey I tell the same stories over and over to my friends too :)
I remember seeing this for the first time, and being struck by the revelation that Bigfoot has boobies.
I love how you can see the giant, white, oval footpads of the "creature." This monkey must have some elephant genes.
...Now, if only someone would take the time to do this process on a film that deserves it: Melle's "From The Earth To The Moon".
weird that so many of you are seeing a "monkey suit"....somewhere online there is a close up of one of the feet...you can see the toes flex and bend, lending further credence to an actual unknown animal rather than a man in a suit.....also tracks were taken from this sighting that tend more towards an unknown than a hoax.
I noticed in this stabilized version that bigfoot has what appear to be a generous set of breasts. Anyone else see this?
A female monkey suit...maybe..but I'm no closer to ruling out the possibility of such a creature now than I was.
Have you ever thought that maybe Bigfoot is IN the ape suit? Try to debunk THAT, you skeptics!
"I don't even remember posting this the first time. Help me."
And they said the LHC test would have no effect.
And they said the LHC test would have no effect.
And they said the LHC test would have no effect.
And they said the LHC test would...
Boingboing repeats itself again, but that's OK because I was thinking about this stabilized image recently.
The thing is. . . it sure does look like it could be a man in a suit, but as we don't have anything else to compare it to except mountain gorillas and orangutans we're kind of in the dark about how a real bigfoot should walk-- it may be that they do indeed walk just like us and could be mistaken for a man in a suit. In other words, what do you propose as a "control subject" for a scientific double-blind test?
This may be a fake, I can accept that, but I don't know one way or the other-- it reminds of "reasonable doubt" in a murder trial. Nevertheless if this is a fake it still doesn't rule out the existence of bigfoot.
(I know some will read this and think I'm being overly forgiving of "obvious fakery" but there are plenty of other fakes out there that I think are more obvious, and don't grant any such leeway; something about this footage, even now, strikes me as authentic, whether it looks like a guy in a suit or not.)
Nevermind whether bigfoot is real of phony -- what the heck is with that QVC pic on the 2006 post?
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/02/stabilized-bigfoot-f.html
@17- [citation needed]
@ill lich, you may have the burden of proof the other way around...
weird that so many of you are seeing a "monkey suit"....somewhere online there is a close up of one of the feet...you can see the toes flex and bend, lending further credence to an actual unknown animal rather than a man in a suit.....also tracks were taken from this sighting that tend more towards an unknown than a hoax.
Perhaps you could post a link to said close up. Me, I'm with the "monkey suit" crowd. The gait and proportions of this creature looks very human. Of course it's possible that a real sasquatch looks just like a dude in a monkey suit, but that's kind of like saying a real flying saucer looks exactly like a hubcab hanging on a string.
Its great that even with a hoax confession the film still gets debated and worked on
as far as the "breasts" go....what, you don't think there could be a female bigfoot? looking for the close up..
This seems like a very flippant use of the Zapruder film. Of course, I clicked on it so I don't know what else I expected, but yikes, that is very graphic!
Still looking.....here is a good page from a REAL Scientist though in the meantime...
That fur has always struck me as unnaturally shiny. You sometimes see glossy fur on swimming mammals such as otters or beaver or on domesticated animals that are groomed regularly like horses, but not so much on wild animals. Long fur trudging around in the forests of Northern California shouldn't look so fabulous.
Phillip Morris of Morris costumes reports that he sold the suit to Patterson and it was made of Dynel, a synthetic material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film). That's my bet.
@21: Nevertheless if this is a fake it still doesn't rule out the existence of bigfoot.
You can't prove that something does not exist, but that failure doesn't prove that it does. We simply have no reason to believe that bigfoot does indeed exist.
The Lord Howe Island Stick Insect (dryococelus australis) is 15cm long, and only lives on a rock outcropping 200m across, about 600km off the eastern coast of Australia. And there's only 30 of these insects in the whole world. If scientists could find them, why can't they find a 300lb, 7' ape-man living in the American backcountry? Why haven't we found a corpse? A skull? A dropping? Why hasn't someone hit one with their car?
Until reliable, physical evidence is produced, we have no more reason to believe in bigfoot than we do in Santa Claus.
Where is there other stabilized film footage, beside the Zapruder film? I imagine I'd like to see some moon footage, or other historic stuff. Surely there must be more of this out there.
Years ago, Jay Ingram and I "revealed" an homage to the Patterson-Gimlin film for "Jay's Journal" on the Discovery Channel Canada website, EXN.ca
It's since been taken down but Jay refers to it in his column here:
http://www.theblackvault.com/article-print-2686.html
Seeing the original image-stablized reminds me that our deliberate parody was taken for an actual hoax, and in a couple of cases, the real deal.
Thanks for reminding me how much we laughed. I'm laughing that hard again.
"why can't they find a 300lb, 7' ape-man living in the American backcountry? Why haven't we found a corpse? A skull? A dropping? Why hasn't someone hit one with their car"
For the same reason they couldn't find Eric Rudolf for 5 years in the woods-- because he didn't want to be found. The theory regarding bigfoot is that the species is related to the prehistoric giganthopithicus which was hunted by early humans, thus the creatures learned instinctively to avoid humans (nearly all reported encounters involve the creature fleeing when it realizes it's been observed).
There are sightings of bigfoot/yeti all the time, there are footprints that are so detailed as to convince podiatrists, there are no such sightings or footprints of Santa Claus.
Sure, the burden of proof goes both ways, so my insistence that it could exist is just as valid as those who think it doesn't; I can therefore mock you as a crackpot just like people who claim to have witnessed the creature get mocked.
So. . . how do scientists KNOW that only 30 Lord Howe Stick insects exist if they haven't caught one?
"Where is there other stabilized film footage, beside the Zapruder film? I imagine I'd like to see some moon footage, or other historic stuff. Surely there must be more of this out there."
Well, Crytomundo has stabilized footage of Nessie:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/holmes-nessie-3/
#30 - Although there is no evidence of his claim? Seems he's one of the LEAST likely claiments.
#26 - Hoax confession? Sorry, no such thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#Aftermath
"Patterson died of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972, still swearing to the authenticity of the film."
"His friend and business associate, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a possible hoax with Patterson and claims that that he and his partner had encountered a real Bigfoot."
Now, this doesn't make the film REAL, but it does make your claim of it being an admitted hoax incorrect. I do admit that the MonsterQuest review of the footage was quite interesting.
#30 - Although there is no evidence of his claim? Seems he's one of the LEAST likely claiments.
"Patterson died of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972, still wearing the suit he wore in the film."
#34 Actually, they have pictures of and physical examples of the Lord Howe Stick Insect.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryococelus_australis
I'd never heard of them before, but a few seconds of googling found me those shots.
So once again, if they can find these things, why can't thy find some solid evidence of a man-sized creature?
Also, how exactly does a corpse, skull or droppings instinctively avoid humans and flee when it realizes it is being observed?
That JFK video is really disturbing and shocking. I have seen that video many times, but this was so clear and horrifying. Can I have a unicorn now?
You all know that somewhere out there is somebody who thinks that it's the same lead in both those films. I mean the man inside the suit could be anyone!?!
On an aside note, I just want to say that Lord Howe Island looks to be an incredibly awesome place....beautiful!
"There are sightings of bigfoot/yeti all the time, there are footprints that are so detailed as to convince podiatrists, there are no such sightings or footprints of Santa Claus."
What? He (and his elves!) spend several weeks each year at the local shopping mall. So there!
"Also, how exactly does a corpse, skull or droppings instinctively avoid humans and flee when it realizes it is being observed?"
I used to do a lot of backpacking, and I rarely came across dead deer on or off the trail, it does happen, but roughly once for every 400 miles of trail by my estimates. However, deer are quite heavily populated in much of the Northeast, and bigfoot (if real) is very rare and probably far more intelligent than deer, intelligent enough to know enough not to get hit by a car for example. Animals die all the time in the woods, and nobody ever finds their remains, they decompose and disappear, and even skulls get chewed up by mice. People have found what they think are bigfoot droppings-- but how do you confirm what animal made them? You can figure out what they ate, you can rule out which animal didn't make them, but beyond that you're at a loss, especially if it's an undocumented creature; you can't DNA test a turd.
People who dismiss bigfoot out of hand usually don't actually know any of the research done in the field. I used to automatically deny the existence of bigfoot too. I used all the common denials: "we would have found one by now, humans have been everywhere, I heard it was a guy in a suit" etc., but once I read up on the subject it began to seem plausible or probable.
It's like a crime scene: if we find a bullet, and dried blood, we can reasonably assume with great probability that someone was shot. It's not 100%, maybe it's only 50%, but we'd be fools to ignore the possibility. All the various bits of evidence regarding bigfoot make it reasonable to assume there really is a previously undocumented hominid out there. I'm not going to present all the evidence here, do your own research if you want to, you might be surprised (it was reading stuff on bfro.net that convinced me to reconsider-- at first it was just entertainment, but at some point I was swayed). The deniers seem to be arguing for willful ignorance: "we haven't found one yet so therefore we never will", which sounds remarkably like creationist's arguments against ever finding "missing links."
#Mojave: Real scientists that live/work in Idaho and post badly created HTML about bigfoot are impressive to nobody but Banshee believers.
@34- For the same reason they couldn't find Eric Rudolf for 5 years in the woods-- because he didn't want to be found.
Eric Rudolph likely had help from sympathizers, and likely knew as much as you or I about police tactics, which made it easier for him to conceal himself (I doubt bigfoot has seen as much America's Most Wanted as we have). Secondly, there was only one Eric Rudolph hiding from the police, not an entire population of them, no doubt including young and infirm individuals who would be less able to conceal themselves.
And I doubt any creature "wants to be found." Yet we find their corpses and trails, we stumble upon their dens, and we capture them and bring them into captivity. Discovering species isn't a matter of them "wanting" or "not wanting" to be found. Everything hides from potential predators.
The Giant Panda has an estimated wild population of about 1600-3000 individuals, living in remote, difficult-to-reach places. The Giant Panda gets up to about 300lbs, and is about the size of an average man. In those regards, it could serve as an adequate analog for bigfoot. Similar habitat, similar size, and very rare. And yet we have more than 250 Giant Pandas in captivity around the world.
@Ill Lich: There's a lot of research on ESP, remote viewing, and extraterrestials.
Also, a great many book has been written with "scientific" evidence proving God exists.
I don't believe any of them. I don't think this makes me sound like a creationist denying any missing links, but you can feel free to believe that.
#18 - The guy who said he sold them the suit indicated it was a female monkey suit:
Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#Philip_Morris_and.2For_Bob_Heironimus
So the boobies make sense.
@43-
bigfoot (if real) is very rare and...intelligent enough to know enough not to get hit by a car for example.
That would make him a lot smarter than us.
On remains in general - yes, things break down in the wild. Yet, we still find them- regularly. Especially when we're looking for them. There are "shed hunters" in America who make a hobby of collecting shedded deer antlers. If hobbyists can find the remains they're looking for, why can't bigfoot hunters? If I can find a chipmunk skull just lingering at my campsite, I should think someone would be able to have found an at least semi-intact bigfoot skull, or femur, or ribcage in the 5 centuries of European habitation of North America.
you can't DNA test a turd.
Actually, you can, it's done fairly regularly. And even though we don't have bigfoot's DNA on file, we could compare the DNA from the droppings to the existing records and determine that the droppings came from an unknown species.
Skepticism isn't willful ignorance. Skepticism is demanding proof. Creationism is the exact opposite of skepticism. It is assumption based on the absence of disproof. The creationist assumes that there is an intelligent designer because the evolutionist cannot prove there is not. The bigfoot hunter asserts there is a sasquatch because the skeptic cannot prove there is not. Not inference, not anecdotes, not assumptions.
It's not impossible for bigfoot to exist, it's just highly, highly improbable.
Didn't you guys post thins like, 3 years ago?
Edit: The bigfoot hunter asserts there is a sasquatch because the skeptic cannot prove there is not. Not inference, not anecdotes, not assumptions.
Should Read:
The bigfoot hunter asserts there is a sasquatch because the skeptic cannot prove there is not. The bigfoot hunter simply requires clues. The skeptic requires concrete proof. Not inference, not anecdotes, not assumptions.
Frame #16. Bigfoot wears hiking boots. As a fellow inhabitant of the pacific northwest, I fully commend his choice of footwear. I wonder if he shops at the same Danner outlet store as I do?
Didn't you guys post thins like, 3 years ago?
Didn't somebody comment that like, at #7 and #12 and #13. Live by your own rules, please.
Ooh ooh! Do Blair Witch Project next!
#51 G. PARK
Nowhere do I assert that bigfoot unequivocally exists. I assert there is a strong possibility, you assert the opposite. I don't know how much you have delved into the bigfoot phenomenon, if you have seen all the same research I have and still came to the opposite conclusion, fair enough. (Also, your DNA link does not work.)
#47 CYCLE23
I have never claimed "research" regarding a phenomenon automatically gives it validity. There IS research on bigfoot that I find credible and worthy of more investigation (I don't claim there is proof of bigfoot, anymore than I believe any "scientific" proofs of God). Whether there is similar credible research on ESP, remote viewing or extraterrestrials I cannot say. I believe you missed the point on my comparison to creationists.
I get the feeling some people are viewing me as a crackpot, so it probably doesn't matter what I say anymore at this point. I find the bigfoot phenomenon interesting and worthy of more serious research, and dislike seeing it automatically dismissed.
@37 It wasn't Patterson's confession I was talking about it, it was "bigfoot"'s (the guy in the suit).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280
the film's a hoax, bigfoot like many other things may or may not exist and while no serious risks should be taken on the basis of asserting either of these options if a life or death choice does depend on it you should probably go with there not being a bigfoot
He looks like he's wearing fur diapers. His legs move but his ass is rigid.
It appears that the guy who stabilized the footage disagrees with the contention that it's a man in a suit, and has made another stabilized version with closeups to try and reveal what he thinks are telling details. I note that there doesn't seem to be a bare area under the arms (meaning between the arm and body along that side, as if rubbed off, you can see this as it turns).
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/Walkingwithbigfoot.gif
It's a Rorschach test (Sasquatch test?) I guess.
Interesting quote: D.W Grieve (of the Royal Free Hospital) notes that his "subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."
#34 posted by ill lich , September 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Sure, the burden of proof goes both ways, so my insistence that it could exist is just as valid as those who think it doesn't; I can therefore mock you as a crackpot just like people who claim to have witnessed the creature get mocked.
No, the "burden of proof" ALWAYS rests with the person who is making a claim; especially if that claim contradicts existing scientific assumptions (i.e., the evolution and migration of hominids).
(Sorry, didn't mean to italicize the second paragraph on that last post)
the "burden of proof" ALWAYS rests with the person who is making a claim
Congratulations on your elevation to supreme maker of rules.
I for one am glad that this got posted a second time. I didn't see it the first and it was interesting to me and I enjoyed the comments. Personally, if I happen to see the same thing posted twice in here, I'll just pass it by, I don't see a need to comment.
As far as the Zapruder film, I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing it enhanced that well (but yes, it was morbidly fascinating). I was 7 years old when the assassination happened and it still hurts my heart when I think about that day.
No one has mentioned that the arms are longer than an average human. If this is a hoaxed man in an ape suit how did they do such an amazing job with the long fake arms. Bigfoot is the last remnants of Cromagnon Man. Much smarter than your average ape and probably buries their own. In Northern California there has been much study on their group patterns and migration. Most is done through foot casting and recognition of foot print characteristics. One creature has been tracked for 250 miles from Southern Oregon to Northern California. It summered in Oregon and wintered in Nor Cal.
BRAINSPORE is right-- the burden of proof should rest with the one making a claim contrary to existing scientific assumptions, but it's not like I'm advocating "perpetual motion" or "intelligent design"; there's no scientific pillar being assaulted by hypothesizing that an undiscovered creature is out there. Nor have I insisted that bigfoot absolutely, undeniably does exist, I'm just trying to counter an apparent cultural bias-- bring up Sasquatch and people laugh and say "Yeah, I remember seeing him on The Six Million Dollar Man back in the 70's, that's a hoot!"
#63 posted by ill lich , September 17, 2008 6:15 AM
BRAINSPORE is right-- the burden of proof should rest with the one making a claim contrary to existing scientific assumptions, but it's not like I'm advocating "perpetual motion" or "intelligent design"; there's no scientific pillar being assaulted by hypothesizing that an undiscovered creature is out there...
The discovery of a new, extant bipedal ape-like creature would overturn decades of anthropological understanding about the evolution and migration of the hominids. That would be really cool from a scientific point of view but as the adage goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So far all the evidence I've seen for bigfoot falls pretty far short of the "extraordinary" mark.
@56 - So, a guy comes out of nowhere and claims that he was the man in the suit. THAT makes it a hoax? My claiming to be the guy on the grassy knoll doesn't make it true.
@66 Given the corroboration for the claim I would say that if it is a fake confession it is pretty damn impressive. Perhaps an even better hoax than the film purports to be - if it was, in fact, a hoax. Ultimately, I am bigfoot agnostic but per the rest of my last post with a gun to my head I am leaning towards 'no bigfoot'
Do you have any support for your claim of being on the grassy knoll?
#61 posted by Antinous , September 16, 2008 7:26 PM
the "burden of proof" ALWAYS rests with the person who is making a claim
Congratulations on your elevation to supreme maker of rules.
----------
Flattered as I am by your comment, I'm not the one that made up that rule. It's a basic tenet of science and law alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses