Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How may Gorilla's and Chimpanzees are wandering around the U.S. Interstate system ?

What? There are no roads in Africa?

[Skeptical Greg]

As far as foot movement, toe movement, weight shifting, that sort of thing..... The "perfect" ones may look fake to an untrained eye. It's the ones that don't look good enough to be cast that really tell the tale to an expert in locomotion. And you don't see how absurd this sounds? If they were ' perfect ', they wouldn't look ' fake ' ....


I suggest that most people would never question the authenticity of a ' perfect ' human or gorilla footprint, even though they would be easy to fake.. There would be no basis for questioning, if they looked ' perfect '...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such a long reply, but no answer to the question..


Out of the millions of Bigfoot foot-prints, why don't we see a preponderance of toes that are as long as Meldrum's fingers, if such prints are typical ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL:

What is your impression of the BFRO? Sidetracking one moment from the issue of the existence or non-existence of Bigfeet, I would like your impression of Moneymaker and crew.

If nothing else, they've collected a huge amount of data. One of my cyber friends does volunteer work for them. Some of the posters on BFF do too. They seem to be very reasonable, intelligent people. They're certainly not the "Bigfoot woos" I keep hearing about. Alton Higgins was very helpful when I corresponded with him. My impression is that they're a good bunch.

Without knowing them personally, what research I have done on them makes them seem a bit sketchy. Charging from $800-$1200 a head to go on “Bigfoot roundups�, someone in the group seems to always have a sighting. Doesn’t this strike you as suspicious? What about the rumor of Moneymaker being caught with a monkey suit in his car?

Where did that rumor come from?

Beckjord said he got caught faking calls and we should all know by now how credible Beckjord is. A cyber friend who does volunteer work for them knows of no substantiation for that.
He says many people have left the BFRO because of MM's "overbearing" personality. I have no doubt he's made enemies who would spread slander about him. I've read his posts on BFF and he seemed pretty reasonable to me. He was getting some flack from some of the posters and handled it fairly well, if rather firmly.

The fees are variable; people with some expertise get preferrence and there's a price break for those who can provide their own transportation. I got a full report from one who's been on a trip (no, he didn't have a sighting), and he felt the experience was well worth the price. He particularly liked the instructional sessions. I find it ironic that with the lack of funding from government, academia and the National Geographic, private organizations get criticized for trying to raise their own.

Equipment costs.

Buy a T-shirt. ;)

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Yeah, that picture of the Hieronimous-Patty suit comparison just leads me to one conclusion: Bob H. was in the suit.

Footers will point to the slight differences between the pictures, but slight differences can be attributed to the difference in the angle of the photo from the subject, and fur depth differences and so forth between the different costumes. I mean, there's no way the suits can be perfectly identical...

Okay, I'm taking up a collection to buy you guys some glasses and a copy of LMS. The proportions are not even close. Check the IM index. Note the legs. This is supposed to be a frame by frame match and the suit was made by the guy who claimed he sold a suit to Patterson for $400 +, although he has no record of the sale.

Bob Heironimus is a man of normal proportions (6'2", as I recall). He was much thinner in 1967 (Heironimus claimed no padding was used). I was amazed that Greg Long included a picture of him from the time in his book. Long added the Morris claim in the last chapter, apparently unaware it contradicted Bob H.'s story (or stories - he's told about four). Heironimus claimed at one point Chambers ("the Planet of the Apes guy") made the suit and that Patterson did from the hide of a red horse. Two different suits are described in the book. Of course, no such suit has been produced and Morris' suits were of the Halloween costume variety. This one was made for a reenactment and it still isn't even close. Where's the muscle definition? The tendons? The rupture?

Heironimus in motion is hysterical. He managed to convince a formerly sceptical wife of a cyber friend (she has a degree in anthropology) when he appeared on the NG show recently the Patterson film is real, so perhaps he's good for something. He looks like a man in a suit. The Patterson creature does not.

If there was a hoax, Gimlin had to have been in on it, yet Gimlin has always stood by the film, despite being cut out almost from the beginning by Patterson and DeAtley. If anyone had reason to expose it, Gimlin did. Heironimus is a neighbor of Gimlin's, BTW. Gimlin takes his Christianity seriously and hasn't seen fit to put Heironimus' lights out despite 30 years of having to endure his nonsense.


"The author makes it clear that he began with two firm convictions, that the creature in Roger Patterson's film of Bigfoot had to be a man in a suit, and that if he could demonstrate that Roger Patterson was a bad person that would prove he had hoaxed the film.

Burdened with those limitations he did a very thorough investigation, but the limitations were fatal. In the valley west of Yakima where Patterson lived he found a lot of people to tell him what he wanted to hear, even a man who had been claiming for years that he wore the suit in the film, but he didn't consider it necessary to familiarize himself with that other valley in California where the film was shot. As a result he was blind to the fact that Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to have driven there to act the part in the film, obviously had never been there either.

Confusion over which towns are where in that part of California might be explained by the passing of more than 30 years, but not "about four, maybe five miles" up the Bluff Creek Road from the highway. It would have been more than 20 miles of twisting dirt road, and not easy miles, well over an hour's drive, and not a forgettable one.

Much of the book is a transcript of what people had to say about Roger Patterson, mostly, but by no means entirely, unfavorable things, and Long makes clear that he thought that would have been enough to disprove the film even if he had never interviewed the man who claimed to have worn the suit or the man who claimed to have made it.

He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms too short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm

[LAL]

More:

"Significantly, Heironimus has no objective evidence that he was Roger Patterson's accomplice, despite a claim made to Long that he could prove he played the creature in the film. He does not have the "ape suit" or any other objective evidence. One of the two witnesses to Heironimus's brief possession of the "ape suit" was an eight-year-old boy at the time, and the other is Heironimus's mother. Some of the corroborating witness accounts are completely contradictory as well. Several people interviewed by Long claim that Heironimus showed them the "ape suit," a claim Heironimus strongly denies.

These conflicting testimonies show the weaknesses of such accounts and why as skeptics we must be cautious. If we are to believe the Heironimus account (and it is most plausible), how do we incorporate the other statements, made by honest-sounding individuals, who say they saw an ape suit in Heironimus's car when he clearly says they didn't?

Greg Long explains in his book that he made no payment to Heironimus, nor was any other financial gain a condition of the story being revealed. I am sure this is true. However, Long does not explain why almost a year elapsed from the time Heironimus's attorney broke the story (but did not reveal Heironimus's name) and the time he contacted Long. A possible reason, not known to either Long or Korff, is that another writer was shopping the story to mainstream book publishers. I know this (although I did not know Heironimus's name at the time), because the writer, a former Yakima-area newspaperman, met with me and a colleague of mine over lunch. During our meeting, we were told there would be no book if there was no profit. It was my impression the (as-then-unnamed) hoaxer was a financial partner. I was skeptical the writer would find a major publishing firm interested in the story but offered to help verify, if possible, certain aspects of the account. If I am correct (and admittedly this is conjecture), Heironimus did have a profit motive. All this does not mean that the Heironimus account is untrue, simply that Long did not ask all the hard questions he might have during his multiple interviews. (4)

Korff tells us that Philip Morris, "who made and sold the Bigfoot costume that Patterson used to fake his movie," has confessed. The impression Korff leaves is that the Heironimus and Morris accounts agree, but they don't, at least not to me. Heironimus says that Patterson made the costume from a red horsehide, while Morris says his suit was made of an artificial fiber. Heironimus, who owned his own horse and went to rodeos, would presumably know the difference between horsehide and nylon fibers. Heironimus said the suit consisted of three parts: a bottom, a midsection, and a head, while Morris says the suit consisted of six parts, one for each limb, a middle section, and a head. Morris says the feet bottoms in his costume were black, yet they are white in the film. Morris says the arms could be extended by using sticks for the gloves, whereas Heironimus says nothing about any arm extensions. In fact, if the Morris costume had "gloves" it would have consisted of eight parts, not the three described by Heironimus.

Korff then goes on to explain: "Morris distinctly told Patterson how to hide this zipper from view, advising him to comb down the fur on the suit with a brush. Sure enough, this Bigfoot, a wild creature presumably living in the wilderness, is remarkably clean and carefully groomed." I don't know how many wild animals Korff has seen, but of the hundreds I have had the chance to observe, including a big black bear last year, I cannot remember a single unkempt animal.

Perhaps a bigger problem with the Morris story is Patterson paying for a suit even though Long's book spends at least a hundred pages explaining how talented Patterson was at making things and how he seldom paid for anything, especially something he could construct for himself. As a skeptic, I am unable to accept Morris's story, for I find the account of Patterson's resourcefulness, artistic capabilities, and lack of capital much more believable. Long does establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Patterson was a man with the ability, aptitude, and motive to fake a Bigfoot film. He does this through multiple interviews with people who were both friends and victims of Patterson and then supplements testimony with objective court records, contracts, and photographs.

As skeptics, what would we do if someone with a more credible account of perpetrating a hoax stepped forward tomorrow? Certainly, one would think that Korff would have considered this possibility, for in the television documentary World's Greatest Hoaxes (a program he was featured in), a man named Jerry Romney, not Heironimus, is identified as the "man in the ape suit." Romney is even shown doing an impressive simulation of the "walk" in the Patterson film, sans the suit."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_29/ai_n8642082#continue

And that's from Michael Dennett.

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe there are enough questions about the Heironimus claims, to seriously doubt his story... Seems like a lot of people would like to cash in on this... Ain't it always so ?


There is a pretty good debunking of his debunking here..

http://www.sasquatchresearch.com/billmiller.html


Don't make Patty real though...


Where's the muscle definition? The tendons? The rupture? Yes, where are they ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And you don't see how absurd this sounds? If they were ' perfect ', they wouldn't look ' fake ' ....


I said to the untrained eye; maybe I should have said to the preconceived notion. Tracks removed from context, as it were, might appear faked, but as part of a trackway that shows articulating toes, e.g., they wouldn't. Am I making myself clear yet?


I suggest that most people would never question the authenticity of a ' perfect ' human or gorilla footprint, even though they would be easy to fake.. There would be no basis for questioning, if they looked ' perfect '...

Gorillas and Chimpanzees have been identified, last I heard, despite the fact that Gorillas were thought to be nothing but native myth, except by the natives, and neither have a fossil record. Gorilla tracks, when they weren't supposed to exist, might have been thought to be faked. There are very clear tracks of the Orang Pendek. There seems to be something about an opposed toe that makes them clearer than perfectly clear tracks of an unidentified hominid primate with a non-opposed toe and tracks that may be 22" long.


Such a long reply, but no answer to the question..


Which one did I miss? I thought I got them all.


Out of the millions of Bigfoot foot-prints, why don't we see a preponderance of toes that are as long as Meldrum's fingers, if such prints are typical ?

Because not many have been posted on the Internet? Just a guess.........

Most of the photos you're seeing are of casts where the toes are bunched rather than splayed because that's what people usually cast.

The Gray's Harbor cast shows long toes:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/Shuker.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I believe there are enough questions about the Heironimus claims, to seriously doubt his story... Seems like a lot of people would like to cash in on this... Ain't it always so ?


There is a pretty good debunking of his debunking here..

http://www.sasquatchresearch.com/billmiller.html


Good article. I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks for posting it.

Don't make Patty real though...

It rules out the best yet "man in a suit" claim.

Yes, where are they ?

They're clearly on the Patterson film, but you won't be able to see much on the dark and indistinct version that showed up on Ancient Mysteries. If that's typical of the TV fare, I can see why people think it's "blurry" and "fuzzy".

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL


[/B]


The Gray's Harbor cast shows long toes:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/images/Shuker.htm [/B]

That's one.. But they barely look proportionally longer than human toes, if at all.. ( Meldrum's fingers looked longer than that to me.. Oh, well )


I guess the Bigfootologist definition of ' typical ' is different than mine..

I hardly think you have defended Meldrum's claim..


Let's move on..

[Skeptical Greg]

The latest Class ' A ' report at BFRO

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12204


I'm trying to understand why this report has been classified as ' A '...

There was no video, photos, tracks or other physical evidence reported...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

How is it you believe in hoaxes at all costs to rationality? The thread I first found on this board started right out with a comment to the effect of "Look what the hoaxers are up to" (regarding Nelson Creek). How many people do you know who would go to the trouble of making an ape suit and then go wading at dawn in the frigid waters of the Nelson (the water was 3-4' deep and the creature about 9') just to fool a ferryman? Is Bigfoot hoaxery a common sport in the Yukon? Is this one well travelled hoaxer who managed to leave tracks in California and Colorado in April as well or is there a network of hoaxers who have nothing better to do than try to appear 9' tall?


If you are now speaking of the Bobby Clarke incident...from the blurry tape it doesn't appear the "figure" is in the water at all. Furthermore, how you can asses from this nightmare of a video that the"figure" is nine feet tall boggles the mind...

Originally posted by LAL

People see something, comb the area for evidence, find hair and send it in for analysis. It turns out to be Bison hair. That isn't a hoax. Nor does it mean they can't tell a Bison from bipedal animal that appeared to be nearly 3 meters tall.


How do you know it wasn't a hoax? How do you know it wasn't a guy in a monkey suit? How do you know these people saw anything at all? How do you know they didn't plant the fur, and concoct the story for attention, or to laugh at people like you?

An extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof. This ain't it.

Originally posted by LAL

Where was the rest of the herd? The hair didn't come from a living animal, so how would it follow they really saw a Bison? And where were the Bison tracks?

I don't know if this was a bona fide sighting or not. Granted, it needs more evidence, but there's none, so far, that it was a hoax.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant...not vide versa.

The herd??? There was no herd, and they didn't see a bison. The fur was from an animal long dead. Bison usually roam plains and open spaces, and Bigfeet usually prowl forests, as well as our own imaginations. Not familiar with the terrain of this sighting, I would guess it was a forest...hence the destroyed trees. Why would a bison ever be in this area? Something's stinky, and it ain't Bigfoot...

[Thurkon]

LAL, for a Bigfoot aficionado, this last post was riddled with inaccuracies. I’m a novice on Bigfoot, yet I spotted these:

Originally posted by LAL
Okay, I'm taking up a collection to buy you guys some glasses and a copy of LMS. The proportions are not even close. Check the IM index. Note the legs. This is supposed to be a frame by frame match and the suit was made by the guy who claimed he sold a suit to Patterson for $400 +, although he has no record of the sale.

How many businesses can produce a receipt of sale for an item sold 40 years ago? This was pre-computer, remember?

Originally posted by LAL
Heironimus claimed at one point Chambers ("the Planet of the Apes guy") made the suit and that Patterson did from the hide of a red horse.

I never heard Bob H. retell that old Chambers story. Where did you get this? Furthermore, Bob H.’s story about the red horse was the one Patterson himself supposedly told him. How is Bob H. supposed to know how the suit was made, or how Patterson modified it?

Originally posted by LAL
Two different suits are described in the book.

No, Morris describes the original suit, and Bob H. describes the Patterson-modified suit. Patterson modified the suit quite a bit. Morris never claimed he sold Patterson a Bigfoot suit with breasts.

Originally posted by LAL
Of course, no such suit has been produced and Morris' suits were of the Halloween costume variety.

Now you’re either speaking from ignorance, or just making things up. Philip Morris was a gorilla suit specialist…not the owner of a costume shop. His suits were of considerable quality. The fact that the suit has never materialized makes no difference. Bob H. claims Gimlin and Patterson picked it up. I guarantee that if you do a search of the houses of Gimlin and Patterson’s relatives you’re going to find approximately one modified monkey suit.

Originally posted by LAL
This one was made for a reenactment and it still isn't even close.

It’s close enough to be sure it could have been done by those who claim it was.

Originally posted by LAL
Where's the muscle definition? The tendons? The rupture?

You mean the fabric bunches, folds, and seams? They’re right where they should be.

Originally posted by LAL
If there was a hoax, Gimlin had to have been in on it, yet Gimlin has always stood by the film, despite being cut out almost from the beginning by Patterson and DeAtley. If anyone had reason to expose it, Gimlin did.

Gimlin wavered in the 1990’s, and claims it might have been a hoax, but he wasn’t in on it. Now, however, he’s making too much money at Bigfoot conferences and BFRO round-ups to give up his good thing.

Originally posted by LAL
As a result he was blind to the fact that Bob Heironimus, the man who claimed to have driven there to act the part in the film, obviously had never been there either.

Confusion over which towns are where in that part of California might be explained by the passing of more than 30 years, but not "about four, maybe five miles" up the Bluff Creek Road from the highway. It would have been more than 20 miles of twisting dirt road, and not easy miles, well over an hour's drive, and not a forgettable one.

This is ridiculous nitpicking. How many times had Bob H. been there? How long had it been? Memories are not accurate things. If he was focused on conversation or such while driving, he might not have noticed how far he went.

Originally posted by LAL
He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms too short to match the creature in the film.

Have you seen the side-by-side comparisons of Patty and Bob H.? They’re practically identical proportions! Are you being purposefully dishonest?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
One of the two witnesses to Heironimus's brief possession of the "ape suit" was an eight-year-old boy at the time, and the other is Heironimus's mother. Some of the corroborating witness accounts are completely contradictory as well. Several people interviewed by Long claim that Heironimus showed them the "ape suit," a claim Heironimus strongly denies.

So…a few people may have lied about seeing the monkey suit? Does that discount the ones who Bob H. says did see it? No, those witnesses back up his story.

Originally posted by LAL
These conflicting testimonies show the weaknesses of such accounts and why as skeptics we must be cautious. If we are to believe the Heironimus account (and it is most plausible), how do we incorporate the other statements, made by honest-sounding individuals, who say they saw an ape suit in Heironimus's car when he clearly says they didn't?

Again, if a few people lied about seeing the monkey suit that only means they lied…not that Bob H. lied. Making some kind of connection between those two is dishonest.

Originally posted by LAL
Heironimus said the suit consisted of three parts: a bottom, a midsection, and a head, while Morris says the suit consisted of six parts, one for each limb, a middle section, and a head.

Again, Patterson modified the suit. He definitely had the skills to do so. Who knows how he modified the suit from the original? The fact that this is a sticking point for you emphasizes the desperation some Footers resort to in their need for Patty to be real.

Originally posted by LAL
Morris says the feet bottoms in his costume were black, yet they are white in the film. .

This is getting hilarious. This is the best you can do?? They look white in the film? The film’s colors are blown out…the feet simply look a lighter shade than the fur. You can’t tell if they’re white, gray, light black or covered with white sand.

Originally posted by LAL
Patterson was at making things and how he seldom paid for anything, especially something he could construct for himself. As a skeptic, I am unable to accept Morris's story, for I find the account of Patterson's resourcefulness, artistic capabilities, and lack of capital much more believable. .

So…Patterson displays the aptitude to modify a gorilla suit into a Bigfoot suit, and he spends money to rent a camera to film Bigfoot for a Bigfoot documentary, and he seems like a shady character who owes people money and is less than honest…yet you think it more rational to believe this is a real Bigfoot because, what…you think Patterson would never have shelled out 400 bucks for a monkey suit? Are you kidding me? This is reasoning?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Thurkon
If you are now speaking of the Bobby Clarke incident...from the blurry tape it doesn't appear the "figure" is in the water at all. Furthermore, how you can asses from this nightmare of a video that the"figure" is nine feet tall boggles the mind...



How do you know it wasn't a hoax? How do you know it wasn't a guy in a monkey suit? How do you know these people saw anything at all? How do you know they didn't plant the fur, and concoct the story for attention, or to laugh at people like you?

An extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof. This ain't it.



The burden of proof lies on the claimant...not vice versa.

The herd??? There was no herd, and they didn't see a bison. The fur was from an animal long dead. Bison usually roam plains and open spaces, and Bigfeet usually prowl forests, as well as our own imaginations. Not familiar with the terrain of this sighting, I would guess it was a forest...hence the destroyed trees. Why would a bison ever be in this area? Something's stinky, and it ain't Bigfoot...

[bruto]

It's hard to tell from the snips I've seen of the PG film whether there is snow on the ground, but it appears there is. If so, the white paddle-looking feet are easily explained by being clogged with snow. The only problem there is that if they feet are that clogged with snow, it makes well defined footprint castings less likely.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by bruto
It's hard to tell from the snips I've seen of the PG film whether there is snow on the ground, but it appears there is. If so, the white paddle-looking feet are easily explained by being clogged with snow. The only problem there is that if they feet are that clogged with snow, it makes well defined footprint castings less likely. No snow.. Date = 10/20/67

I believe the subject is walking in a dry creek bed that seems to be primarily a grayish sand / silt ..


From: http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

" In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. "


The feet still look odd to me.. Virtually no shadows or features are evident. They do not seem to meet the level of detail discernable in the other aspects of the film.

It's one of those things that seems so obviously fake, that it makes one say ' it must not be '...

It's only fair to say, a lot of real things can appear contrived..

[bruto]

Originally posted by Diogenes
No snow.. Date = 10/20/67

I believe the subject is walking in a dry creek bed that seems to be primarily a grayish sand / silt ..


From: http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html

" In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a sandy clay soil with a blue-gray tinge. This type of soil holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time. "


The feet still look odd to me.. Virtually no shadows or features are evident. They do not seem to meet the level of detail discernable in the other aspects of the film.

It's one of those things that seems so obviously fake, that it makes one say ' it must not be '...

It's only fair to say, a lot of real things can appear contrived..

Maybe Ms. Bigfoot had cold feet that morning, and went out with her bunny slippers on.

Thinking about it, perhaps that's a way to reconcile the apparent suits with the reality of sasquatches. We've been assuming all along that they're hairy, when actually they're naked just like us, so when they go out they go dressed in their native garb, which happens to be bison-fur suits, expertly tailored (after all, they're said to be very intelligent, and said is as good as gold for squatch-watchers), perhaps with dog sinew thread.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
[BI've read his posts on BFF and he seemed pretty reasonable to me.[/B]

Are you kidding? You think he sounds reasonable? By reasonable, do you mean -fair- or -rational-?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10520&st=100&#entry216965
These trips are only for *productive* people, Terry. You could not be very productive if you spend hours and hours and days on end on message forums like this one, along with a whole lot of other unproductive rejects who can only waste their hours and days posting mindless, tittering blather, driven by feelings of powerlessness and social isolation ... and often addictions to various substances like perscription painkillers.

Do you know anyone like that, JimF, Blackdog?? ;-)

No, you wouldn't make the cut for a BFRO expedition, so you don't need to make a choice in that regard. I'll make it for you. You only need to waste a few more precious hours of your life trying come up with yet another pointless reply in another pointless thread, along with the rest of the pathetic "regulars" here ...


Sounds like he has no love for the BFF.

From that same thread:

The BFF is a cesspool. It is a cesspool crowded with wallowing idiots. They should not be indulged with an "official release" every time they gripe about something related to the BFRO...For a little while at least, lets try to not respond to gripes on the BFF. We need to make that rotten peanut gallery even less significant than it is already.

No non-BFRO people who are of any great importance to the BFRO, follow the BFF. I talk to plenty of impressive people all the time who closely follow the BFRO. Most of them have never even heard of the BFF. The few who have been there, thought it was ridiculous, and never returned to it after their first occassion of experiencing all the mindless blather.

Recently the BFRO has been imploding with an exodus of curators, and though the rumor of a monkey suit has not been proven, the discovery of a suit wouldn't surprise me in the least.

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for the insight RayG,


When you compare such comments to some of the absurd ' Class A ' reports over at BFRO, my irony meter explodes..

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
That's one.. But they barely look proportionally longer than human toes, if at all.. ( Meldrum's fingers looked longer than that to me.. Oh, well )


I guess the Bigfootologist definition of ' typical ' is different than mine..

I hardly think you have defended Meldrum's claim..


Let's move on..

Not yet. There are a number of photos of casts with long toes in Chris Murphy's book......the Hympton casts, the Crew cast (especially the cleaned up version), some of the Bluff Creek tracks where the toes aren't as bunched up, the Strathcona cast......there's a footprint cast gallery. Meldrum has over a hundred casts in his collection. Presumably he's studied them.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Not yet. There are a number of photos of casts with long toes in Chris Murphy's book......the Hympton casts, the Crew cast (especially the cleaned up version), some of the Bluff Creek tracks where the toes aren't as bunched up, the Strathcona cast......there's a footprint cast gallery. Meldrum has over a hundred casts in his collection. Presumably he's studied them. Then we are dealing with large variances I suppose..

Your Patty appears to be a short-toed version..

Just one of those persistant perplexities..


I understand the hooves of Unicorns vary greatly also ...

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
It's hard to tell from the snips I've seen of the PG film whether there is snow on the ground, but it appears there is. If so, the white paddle-looking feet are easily explained by being clogged with snow. The only problem there is that if they feet are that clogged with snow, it makes well defined footprint castings less likely.

No snow. She was on a sandbar. There may have been sand sticking to her feet. The casts Patterson got are very clear. Photos were taken next day by Lyle Laverty. He cast ten tracks, two of which show the midtarsal break.

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Are you kidding? You think he sounds reasonable? By reasonable, do you mean -fair- or -rational-?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=10520&st=100&#entry216965


Sounds like he has no love for the BFF.


I've read that. I don't think he was any more offensive than, say, Wildman. I looked up all his posts. It said there were 8, but I only counted 7. Perhaps one was removed.

See this?

" I paid for my first expedition last year and have no regrets. I credit the BFRO for having these expeditions, it helped me get off my ass and get involved. Just about everyone i've met in the Org. are good people who are very helpful. In a nutshell, that's been my personal experience with the BFRO. If you went on an expedition and had a bad experience thats one thing, but if you've never been on one how can so many of you be so critical?
It's very simple, you have a choice- you have a problem with them charging, don't go. Your somewhat gullible and are afraid the group will simulate class B incidents to give you value perception, then please by all means, don't go. For some people such as myself who love this mystery but initially aren't the most wilderness savvy or experienced, these expeditions provide a great outlet to help get your feet wet. "

From that same thread.

Recently the BFRO has been imploding with an exodus of curators, and though the rumor of a monkey suit has not been proven, the discovery of a suit wouldn't surprise me in the least.

RayG

Anyone can slander anyone. Until science takes over, it's in the hands of private organizations, and, as such, as Roger points out, they can do as they wish. Murphy gives them a good write up and they are non-profit, at least at the time of the writing.

What would happen if MM resigned?

To sum up the argument, "researchers" don't always get along and MM charges for trips, therefore Sasquatches don't exist. Am I getting that right?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Then we are dealing with large variances I suppose..

Your Patty appears to be a short-toed version..

Just one of those persistant perplexities..


I understand the hooves of Unicorns vary greatly also ...

The only thing that perplexes me is your failure to understand that toes on a living foot flex, splay and are sometimes not aligned.

There is variation, just as there is in human feet......."patrician" toes and "plebian" toes, e.g..

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
Until science takes over, ....

You said it!

[LAL]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thurkon


If you are now speaking of the Bobby Clarke incident...from the blurry tape it doesn't appear the "figure" is in the water at all. Furthermore, how you can asses from this nightmare of a video that the"figure" is nine feet tall boggles the mind...

It is in the water and the water was measured at 3"-4' in that area.

How do you know it wasn't a hoax? How do you know it wasn't a guy in a monkey suit? How do you know these people saw anything at all? How do you know they didn't plant the fur, and concoct the story for attention, or to laugh at people like you?

An extraordinary claim demands extraordinary proof. This ain't it.


Your assumption that it must all be a hoax since you can't accept the existence of these creatures seems extraodinary to me.
Are you getting these sightings mixed up? The Clarke film was in Manitoba and the sighting with the old Bison fur in the Yukon.
Both have been checked out, in any event. No sign of any hoaxing that I know of.

Sasquatches are part of the traditions of both the Cree and the Tlingit as well as other First Nations people, especially along the coast.


The burden of proof lies on the claimant...not vice versa.

The herd??? There was no herd, and they didn't see a bison.


That's what I'm saying. Nine people (and more saw it) described a large, hairy hominid, not a Bison. If they mistook a Bison for a Sasquatch, I'd expect the rest of the herd to be around somewhere. Some have made the assumption they must have seen a Bison, apparently not knowing it was old Bison hair.


The fur was from an animal long dead.


And had nothing to do with the sightings. It was just there.


Bison usually roam plains and open spaces, and Bigfeet usually prowl forests, as well as our own imaginations. Not familiar with the terrain of this sighting, I would guess it was a forest...hence the destroyed trees. Why would a bison ever be in this area? Something's stinky, and it ain't Bigfoot...

It might be your interpretation.

What part of reintroduced herd of Wood Bison didn't you understand? They were once native to the area.

"Habitat

Wood bison use different habitats depending on the season. In summer, they can be found in small willow pastures and uplands where they feed on sedges, forbes and willows. In winter, they move to frozen wet sedge meadows and lakeshores where they feed on sedges. In the fall, they can be found in the forest where they feed on lichens."

http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/Publications/speciesatriskweb/woodbison.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
So…a few people may have lied about seeing the monkey suit? Does that discount the ones who Bob H. says did see it? No, those witnesses back up his story.

Again, if a few people lied about seeing the monkey suit that only means they lied…not that Bob H. lied. Making some kind of connection between those two is dishonest.



You're scoffing at Michael Dennett now? Well, that's progress.

Bob's shown himself to be a liar without any help.


Again, Patterson modified the suit. He definitely had the skills to do so. Who knows how he modified the suit from the original? The fact that this is a sticking point for you emphasizes the desperation some Footers resort to in their need for Patty to be real.


He did? He was a fair to middlin' amateur artist and did some inept sculpture. How does that qualify him to make or modify a suit that even Hollywood experts and Morris himself haven't been able to duplicate?


This is getting hilarious. This is the best you can do?? They look white in the film? The film’s colors are blown out…the feet simply look a lighter shade than the fur. You can’t tell if they’re white, gray, light black or covered with white sand.

So…Patterson displays the aptitude to modify a gorilla suit into a Bigfoot suit, and he spends money to rent a camera


He went to jail for failing to pay the rent.


to film Bigfoot for a Bigfoot documentary, and he seems like a shady character who owes people money and is less than honest…yet you think it more rational to believe this is a real Bigfoot because, what…you think Patterson would never have shelled out 400 bucks for a monkey suit? Are you kidding me? This is reasoning?

Morris claimed he sold a suit to a Roger Patterson for (I think) $412 + S&H. He has no record of this. It's possible Patterson did order a suit since he intended to make a documentary and reenactments were a standard way of doing things. DeAtley claimed he financed the trip to California, but never mentioned anything about funding a suit, at least in the interview with Long. Seems Roger never worked a regular job in his life and did quite a bit of borrowing from his brother-in-law.


"How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming
By Roger Knights

There are many obviously objectionable points associated with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Some skeptics have seized on these as handy sticks with which to pummel it. But one could turn their case on its head and argue the opposite: that even rudimentary planning would have eliminated such predictably problematic stuff. To wit:

“Red-flag� behavior by Patterson, Gimlin, or “Patty�;
Bells & whistles—these are costly & troublesome. (Keep It Simple, Stupid.)
Thus, the very fact that so many easy-to-foresee red flags and unnecessary complications were involved implies a lack of foresight, which implies a lack of planning, which implies the absence of a commercially motivated hoax.

Suppose you’re planning how NOT to film a successful Bigfoot hoax. You’d be well advised to incorporate these red-flags and risky/costly bells-and-whistles:

1. Don’t buy the camera you use. (Although it’ll become a valuable artifact.)

2. Allow the rental period on the camera to be exceeded, and be jailed for not returning it on time. (That’ll add to your credibility!)

3. Use a better-than necessary (16 mm) camera that reveals objectionable details, like uniform hair length, too long-foot length, etc. [Thanks to Bigfoot Forums (BFF) member “Toe Toe.�]

4. Ask along a second witness, greatly complicating things (if he is unwitting), or adding to the expense (if he is “witting�).
5. Ask along two third witnesses (ditto). (Track Record #35, p. 4, and #97, p. 2.)

6. Boast that you’re going to film a Bigfoot, making your encounter seem non-accidental.

7. Use horses. (They complicate the story, could fail to rear, and add expense.) [Thanks to BFF member “HarryHenderson�]

8. Have the two witnesses disagree on many details, such as the creature’s smell, stride, and height, and whether or not Patterson’s horse fell on him, or he slid off it (according to Gimlin). (See Barbara Wasson’s Sasquatch Apparitions, p. 68.)
“Let’s get our stories straight�— someone amongst every group of plotters utters that classic line, both in countless popular thrillers, and in the real world. Virtually all commercially motivated plotters rehearse. But not P or G—so perhaps they plotted nothing. (Note—the differences in P & G’s stories were not forced out of them cross-examined separately, which is the way suspicious contradictions emerge in the tales of conspirators, but popped up the first times they were asked merely to tell their stories by interviewers (e.g., on radio interviews together). Nor were they about minor aspects of the tale they hadn’t anticipated being asked about, but were about its central aspects.)

9. Estimate the creature’s weight at half of what would be a reasonable guess, and a few years later revise your estimate, causing skeptics to accuse you of unreliability.

10.Don’t photograph a human or stick to provide scaling. (Doubt is the result.)

11. Stage the event at a site with the reassuring name of Bluff Creek.

12. Film in a location near a road, where someone might stumble on the crew.

13. Film in an awkward, out-of-the-way part of the country, and hang around the site for over two weeks before the shot—a waste of resources and time.

14. Include characteristics in the suit that scientists are sure to object to, such as:

Features not encountered among female apes, such as a sagittal crest, large hairy breasts, a bulky, heavily muscled torso, and a bold, dominating stride.
A human-like stride, not the “lumbering� gait friendly scientists expected, and not different at first glance from the walk of an actor in an ape-suit.
A foot length that doesn’t agree with the length of stride for a human.
No strong directional grain to the hair and little irregularity in hair-length.
A light-colored foot-sole, wrapping slightly up around the edges of the foot.
A rear-projecting heel.
An unlikely, half-human face, like nothing in art or nature.
Any type of face. (Showing it would only raise objections, and in any event would be difficult to make realistic. [Thanks to BFF member “Cochise� for the last point.])

15. Fail to contact scientists who believe in hominids, like Boris Porshnev.

16. Add oddities like a hernia on the thigh and a large skin tag (or tumor) on the breast.

17. Claim a Friday filming, making it impossible to process the film over the weekend.

18. Claim to have done so anyway.

19. Be penny-wise and have the film developed by an unnamable moonlighting camera-shop employee. (Although a “clear chain of custody� is a must.)

20. Show the film on Sunday, an almost-impossibly short time-line, despite the lack of any need for a speedy showing.

21. Show the original print repeatedly to visiting BF buffs, so it will get scratched and scuffed, instead of making viewing copies of the film immediately.

22. Put the priceless film in the mail, instead of hand-carrying it to a developer.

23. Don’t invite the press to the dramatic first showing, or to the film’s processing.

24. Forget the filming speed. (Another gold star on your credibility score-sheet.)

25. Lose the original copy of the first reel, and also all copies of the second reel."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/how_not_to_plan.html

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The latest Class ' A ' report at BFRO

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12204


I'm trying to understand why this report has been classified as ' A '...

There was no video, photos, tracks or other physical evidence reported...

Ask them. I'd give it a "B", myself.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL


"How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming
By Roger Knights

There are many obviously objectionable points associated with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Some skeptics have seized on these as handy sticks with which to pummel it. But one could turn their case on its head and argue the opposite: that even rudimentary planning would have eliminated such predictably problematic stuff. To wit:

“Red-flag� behavior by Patterson, Gimlin, or “Patty�;
Bells & whistles—these are costly & troublesome. (Keep It Simple, Stupid.)
Thus, the very fact that so many easy-to-foresee red flags and unnecessary complications were involved implies a lack of foresight, which implies a lack of planning, which implies the absence of a commercially motivated hoax.

Suppose you’re planning how NOT to film a successful Bigfoot hoax. You’d be well advised to incorporate these red-flags and risky/costly bells-and-whistles:

1. Don’t buy the camera you use. (Although it’ll become a valuable artifact.)

2. Allow the rental period on the camera to be exceeded, and be jailed for not returning it on time. (That’ll add to your credibility!)

3. Use a better-than necessary (16 mm) camera that reveals objectionable details, like uniform hair length, too long-foot length, etc. [Thanks to Bigfoot Forums (BFF) member “Toe Toe.�]

4. Ask along a second witness, greatly complicating things (if he is unwitting), or adding to the expense (if he is “witting�).
5. Ask along two third witnesses (ditto). (Track Record #35, p. 4, and #97, p. 2.)

6. Boast that you’re going to film a Bigfoot, making your encounter seem non-accidental.

7. Use horses. (They complicate the story, could fail to rear, and add expense.) [Thanks to BFF member “HarryHenderson�]

8. Have the two witnesses disagree on many details, such as the creature’s smell, stride, and height, and whether or not Patterson’s horse fell on him, or he slid off it (according to Gimlin). (See Barbara Wasson’s Sasquatch Apparitions, p. 68.)
“Let’s get our stories straight�— someone amongst every group of plotters utters that classic line, both in countless popular thrillers, and in the real world. Virtually all commercially motivated plotters rehearse. But not P or G—so perhaps they plotted nothing. (Note—the differences in P & G’s stories were not forced out of them cross-examined separately, which is the way suspicious contradictions emerge in the tales of conspirators, but popped up the first times they were asked merely to tell their stories by interviewers (e.g., on radio interviews together). Nor were they about minor aspects of the tale they hadn’t anticipated being asked about, but were about its central aspects.)

9. Estimate the creature’s weight at half of what would be a reasonable guess, and a few years later revise your estimate, causing skeptics to accuse you of unreliability.

10.Don’t photograph a human or stick to provide scaling. (Doubt is the result.)

11. Stage the event at a site with the reassuring name of Bluff Creek.

12. Film in a location near a road, where someone might stumble on the crew.

13. Film in an awkward, out-of-the-way part of the country, and hang around the site for over two weeks before the shot—a waste of resources and time.

14. Include characteristics in the suit that scientists are sure to object to, such as:

Features not encountered among female apes, such as a sagittal crest, large hairy breasts, a bulky, heavily muscled torso, and a bold, dominating stride.
A human-like stride, not the “lumbering� gait friendly scientists expected, and not different at first glance from the walk of an actor in an ape-suit.
A foot length that doesn’t agree with the length of stride for a human.
No strong directional grain to the hair and little irregularity in hair-length.
A light-colored foot-sole, wrapping slightly up around the edges of the foot.
A rear-projecting heel.
An unlikely, half-human face, like nothing in art or nature.
Any type of face. (Showing it would only raise objections, and in any event would be difficult to make realistic. [Thanks to BFF member “Cochise� for the last point.])

15. Fail to contact scientists who believe in hominids, like Boris Porshnev.

16. Add oddities like a hernia on the thigh and a large skin tag (or tumor) on the breast.

17. Claim a Friday filming, making it impossible to process the film over the weekend.

18. Claim to have done so anyway.

19. Be penny-wise and have the film developed by an unnamable moonlighting camera-shop employee. (Although a “clear chain of custody� is a must.)

20. Show the film on Sunday, an almost-impossibly short time-line, despite the lack of any need for a speedy showing.

21. Show the original print repeatedly to visiting BF buffs, so it will get scratched and scuffed, instead of making viewing copies of the film immediately.

22. Put the priceless film in the mail, instead of hand-carrying it to a developer.

23. Don’t invite the press to the dramatic first showing, or to the film’s processing.

24. Forget the filming speed. (Another gold star on your credibility score-sheet.)

25. Lose the original copy of the first reel, and also all copies of the second reel."

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/how_not_to_plan.html

LAL,

I’m confused. Is your post implying that all of these crass inconsistencies in story, overall blunders, biological anomalies, credibility issues and so forth...in your topsy-turvy bizarro Bigfoot world...somehow make the Patterson-Gimlin film more credible?

Whaaa?

I’m speechless. That post makes my head want to explode.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
The only thing that perplexes me is your failure to understand that toes on a living foot flex, splay and are sometimes not aligned.

There is variation, just as there is in human feet......."patrician" toes and "plebian" toes, e.g.. Meldrum said;



" typical Bigfoot toes are as long as my fingers "

We have no evidence to support it ...

Bad science. Not a credible source..

We should question anything he says...

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL, for a Bigfoot aficionado, this last post was riddled with inaccuracies.

Green was on the scene soon after the filming. He knows what he's talking about.


I’m a novice on Bigfoot, yet I spotted these:

How many businesses can produce a receipt of sale for an item sold 40 years ago? This was pre-computer, remember?


Wouldn't you save such an important item, especially after all the publicity the film got? Why not come out with the story then? Morris said he got a call from someone saying he was Roger Patterson. This is proof?

Have you seen what Morris was producing in those days?


I never heard Bob H. retell that old Chambers story. Where did you get this? Furthermore, Bob H.’s story about the red horse was the one Patterson himself supposedly told him. How is Bob H. supposed to know how the suit was made, or how Patterson modified it?



He said it smelled bad, and how many pieces it was in (see below). He didn't say "Chambers", per se. He said it on an interview on KTAU, Portland, Oregon.

"Heironimus said the suit he was wearing in the film was made by the man who created the outfits for the movie, 'Planet Of The Apes.' "

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66988


No, Morris describes the original suit, and Bob H. describes the Patterson-modified suit. Patterson modified the suit quite a bit. Morris never claimed he sold Patterson a Bigfoot suit with breasts.


Heironimus thought water bags were added. The story seemed to get better the more he was questioned. If you want inconsistancies, read Long's book.


Now you’re either speaking from ignorance, or just making things up. Philip Morris was a gorilla suit specialist…not the owner of a costume shop. His suits were of considerable quality.


I never said he had a costume shop. His suits were of "Halloween costume" quality. I'll post pictures later when I have time to look them up.


The fact that the suit has never materialized makes no difference. Bob H. claims Gimlin and Patterson picked it up. I guarantee that if you do a search of the houses of Gimlin and Patterson’s relatives you’re going to find approximately one modified monkey suit.



Funny neither Gimlin nor Patterson's widow ever saw it. I wouldn't put any money on that, if I were you.


It’s close enough to be sure it could have been done by those who claim it was.

It was made long after the film was shot, specifically for a reenactment with Bob in it. It is nothing like Morris' suits of the mid-sixties.


You mean the fabric bunches, folds, and seams? They’re right where they should be.


Read Glickman. He spent three years on an analysis.
And see a good copy of the film. There are some excellent stills in Murphy's book. You can see the rupture Meldrum is talking about.


Gimlin wavered in the 1990’s, and claims it might have been a hoax, but he wasn’t in on it. Now, however, he’s making too much money at Bigfoot conferences and BFRO round-ups to give up his good thing.

Nonsense. He considered the possibility he was hoaxed, but decided that was impossible. Exactly how much money is he making on these appearances and what is your source on that?


This is ridiculous nitpicking. How many times had Bob H. been there? How long had it been? Memories are not accurate things. If he was focused on conversation or such while driving, he might not have noticed how far he went.


He couldn't tell 5 miles from 20?


Have you seen the side-by-side comparisons of Patty and Bob H.? They’re practically identical proportions! Are you being purposefully dishonest?

Of course. I posted it. They are not even close. The human IM averages 72. Patty's is 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes.

"What about Roger Patterson buying a gorilla suit? Philip Morris does not claim to have records, only a memory. Neither Mrs. Patterson nor Bob Gimlin remember Roger having any such suit. But Roger was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary at that time and most such documentaries contain re-enactments by someone wearing a fur suit. If he did buy one it has little more significance than an apprentice carpenter buying a hammer.

The descriptions of the suit by the two key witnesses are totally contradictory. Morris is quoted as having described his suit in precise detail, and how he made it. The suit had six separate pieces: a head a body (arms, torso and legs), two hands and two feet. A knitted cloth material served as a backing to thousands of synthetic nylon strands called dynel, which were driven by a powerful knitting machine with needles through the knitted cloth material and then pulled back through to the other side. It had a 36-inch zipper up the back.

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like big rubber boots and that went to his waist.

He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.� "

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL,

I’m confused. Is your post implying that all of these crass inconsistencies in story, overall blunders, biological anomalies, credibility issues and so forth...in your topsy-turvy bizarro Bigfoot world...somehow make the Patterson-Gimlin film more credible?

Whaaa?

I’m speechless. That post makes my head want to explode.

I didn't mean to confuse you. I thought someone with a taste for Monty Python would appreciate Roger Knights.

There's nothing topsy turvy or bizarro in my world. The evidence speaks for itself.

If Patterson and Gimlin were trying to pull a hoax, they certainly could have done a better job of it.

"Leg Length

The length of the subject's leg is computed from frame 326. Using the previously computed subject height as a scale reference, the subject's leg length of 150 pixels is computed as 40" accounting for the bent knee. An error analysis has not yet been performed.

The leg length expected for this height in a human is 46.4" [Winter 1990]. The standard leg to height ratio is .53H [Winter 1990]. The observed ratio extracted from the film is .46H. The leg length of the subject is 3.0 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9 percentile and is present in one out of 1,000 people. While the length of the leg could be the result of a prosthesis, it is the opinion of the author that the probability of this is low because foot flexion is observed in the film.

Edge Detection

Edge detection algorithms were run on key frames, including frame 352, with the hope that if the subject was a person wearing a costume, that a seam or interface in the costume would be detected [Gonzalez 1987]. No seams or interfaces were detected."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi2.html

Please read Glickman.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

Edge Detection

Edge detection algorithms were run on key frames, including frame 352, with the hope that if the subject was a person wearing a costume, that a seam or interface in the costume would be detected [Gonzalez 1987]. No seams or interfaces were detected."


Are you kidding? I can see the seams myself. There's a giant fur diaper strapped to this guy's rear, and it ain't moving with his legs. The seams are screaming to be noticed. Or are they simply more "ruptures"?

Originally posted by LAL

Please read Glickman.

Who the heck is Glickman? One quack pseudo-scientist willing to subscribe to this nonsense? You want me to post the names of hundreds of others who don't?

[Skeptical Greg]

If Patterson and Gimlin were trying to pull a hoax, they certainly could have done a better job of it. Apparently not, if you are a believer...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

If Patterson and Gimlin were trying to pull a hoax, they certainly could have done a better job of it.


Has there been a history of Bigfoot hoaxers doing a particularly good job of hoaxing? Or has it been one big stupid mess of bison fur, rubber feet and blurry video?

I think you may be giving Patterson and Co. far too much credit in the thinking department. Does the fact that Patterson revealed he was renting a camera to film Bigfoot prove he wasn’t out to hoax, or it is proof of Patterson’s incredible stupidity?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I've read that. I don't think he was any more offensive than, say, Wildman. I looked up all his posts. It said there were 8, but I only counted 7. Perhaps one was removed.

Offensive? I thought you said he sounded reasonable.

reasonable:
1. Capable of reasoning; rational
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking
3. Being within the bounds of common sense
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair

offensive:
1. Disagreeable to the senses
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront
3. a. Making an attack
b. Of, relating to, or designed for attack


See this?

" I paid for my first expedition last year and have no regrets. I credit the BFRO for having these expeditions, it helped me get off my ass and get involved. Just about everyone i've met in the Org. are good people who are very helpful. In a nutshell, that's been my personal experience with the BFRO. If you went on an expedition and had a bad experience thats one thing, but if you've never been on one how can so many of you be so critical?
It's very simple, you have a choice- you have a problem with them charging, don't go. Your somewhat gullible and are afraid the group will simulate class B incidents to give you value perception, then please by all means, don't go. For some people such as myself who love this mystery but initially aren't the most wilderness savvy or experienced, these expeditions provide a great outlet to help get your feet wet. "

Yeah, how does THAT relate to MM being reasonable or not?

Anyone can slander anyone. Until science takes over, it's in the hands of private organizations, and, as such, as Roger points out, they can do as they wish. Murphy gives them a good write up and they are non-profit, at least at the time of the writing.

Slander? You'd have to take that up with MM and those ex-curators. One of my biggest complaints with the BFRO is their self-appointed designation as "The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery."

I believe I have pointed out the irony of this proclamation a number of times. If YOU believe they're a scientific research organization so be it.

What would happen if MM resigned?

Who knows, maybe the BFRO would actually become a 'scientific research organization' at least in the manner in which they conduct investigations. Are you suggesting he couldn't possibly be replaced?

To sum up the argument, "researchers" don't always get along and MM charges for trips, therefore Sasquatches don't exist. Am I getting that right?

Not from me, though I can't say I'm surprised a number of curators have left the organization. Those curators seem to have left because of a lack of leadership from the head of the BFRO (MM), not because they didn't believe in Squatch.

An interesting summation of a BFRO expedition can be found here:
http://thedaily.washington.edu/all.lasso?-database=DailyWebSQL&-table=Articles&-response=featurespage.lasso&-keyField=__Record_ID__&-keyValue=13039&-search

The author sums up the experience thus:

I left the trip, feeling unimpressed and unconvinced. Each occurrence of Bigfoot evidence could be explained away by some other natural phenomenon.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Are you kidding? I can see the seams myself. There's a giant fur diaper strapped to this guy's rear, and it ain't moving with his legs. The seams are screaming to be noticed. Or are they simply more "ruptures"?

You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years. You're willing to take the word of someone who can't prove his case but doesn't mind the limelight and the money, but you ignore a three-year study done by the North American Science Institute under the direction of a Certified Forensic Examiner (Jeff Glickman) because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe. Whatever.

The lack of "jiggle" in the rear end, unlike a that of a human, is due to the compliant gait. The legs tend to act as shock absorbers.

Glickman's no quack pseudo-scientist. Neither was D.W. Grieve, reader in biomechanics, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London, England, nor the Russian specialists, Bayanov, and Donskoy. Donskoy was Chief of the Chair of Biomechanics at the USSR Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow.


Who the heck is Glickman? One quack pseudo-scientist willing to subscribe to this nonsense? You want me to post the names of hundreds of others who don't?


Sure. The only requirement would be that they've actually studied the film and have some credentials in field somewhat related to primatology. Post their reports, too. Dennett and Daegling don't count; we've already heard from them.

[LAL]

"Morris started making his own gorilla suits at home. He used them in his haunted house magic act in which a girl is turned into a gorilla. His best gorilla suit and this very magic act both can be seen in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. The only other Hollywood connection that I've found for him is when some of his masks were used in the 1991 Keanu Reeves movie POINT BREAK. These were simply Halloween masks and not special fx make-up. This was Morris' actual business from the 60's on. He made Halloween costumes - not movie creature fx.

I had worked on the movie BATMAN RETURNS and afterwards noted that the Morris Costume version of the Batman movie suit was pretty good. So when I had to work on a promo for the movie SPIDERMAN, we thought of Morris Costume and the availability and low price of his superhero halloween outfits.

A friend of mine was one of the Spiderman stunt doubles and when I saw the $100.000 suit on him made for the SPIDERMAN movie I was amazed. I couldn't figure out how he got into it. It was custom-fit to his body like a glove. But when the Morris' Spiderman suit arrived to our location in Texas, I was shocked. It was horrible and not even close. It looked like what it was... a cheap Halloween costume."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7644&st=0&#entry152712

[LAL]

This is from Long's book. Note the caption; it's the "exact same type of gorilla suit":

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG

Yeah, how does THAT relate to MM being reasonable or not?


He didn't sound nearly as obnoxious as I expected him to sound. Didn't I say "pretty reasonable"? Thought I did. It's his organization and it didn't sound like he appreciated seeing it trashed over the expeditions. I don't blame him.


Slander? You'd have to take that up with MM and those ex-curators. One of my biggest complaints with the BFRO is their self-appointed designation as "The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot / sasquatch mystery."

I believe I have pointed out the irony of this proclamation a number of times. If YOU believe they're a scientific research organization so be it.


I know they've had scientists working with them. Alton Higgins gave me a clue on who they are.

If this is bugging you so much, write and demand they change their slogan, but don't take it out on me. I don't know MM, but I don't see the organization as worthless just because of MM.


Who knows, maybe the BFRO would actually become a 'scientific research organization' at least in the manner in which they conduct investigations. Are you suggesting he couldn't possibly be replaced?


No, I imagine 3000 members would manage to muddle on without him. I was just wondering if the whole effort would collapse if he resigned.


Not from me, though I can't say I'm surprised a number of curators have left the organization. Those curators seem to have left because of a lack of leadership from the head of the BFRO (MM), not because they didn't believe in Squatch.

RayG

Other than Noll, who left? Your source? Not EB, I hope. I was told it was because of his overbearing personality.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Has there been a history of Bigfoot hoaxers doing a particularly good job of hoaxing?


No.


Or has it been one big stupid mess of bison fur, rubber feet and blurry video?

You have evidence of rubber feet? The only fake feet I know of were carved.

The Yukon case is the first instance I know of involving a misidentification of Bison hair.

I think you may be giving Patterson and Co. far too much credit in the thinking department. Does the fact that Patterson revealed he was renting a camera to film Bigfoot prove he wasn’t out to hoax, or it is proof of Patterson’s incredible stupidity?

There had been tracks in the area for years. He'd already written a rather poor book on it and wanted to make a documentary. He knew he was dying. He'd been in on the investigation for six years prior to the filming. Bryne's honest opinion was that Patterson and Gimlin weren't smart enough to pull off such a hoax. Krantz said Patterson looked blank when asked about some of the technicalities he would have had to know to pull it off.

If the film is so blurry, what makes you think you can see seams?

Do you have those names yet? I haven't seen one successful debunking, let alone hundreds.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Meldrum said;



" typical Bigfoot toes are as long as my fingers "

We have no evidence to support it ...

None that you could find, anyway.

Bad science. Not a credible source..

We should question anything he says...

I'm sure he has the answers. If he gives the actual measurements in his book when it comes out, will you retract?

[fsol]

This whole thread is a joke right?

My favorite bit was when somebody claimed to have found an anomaly in the PG footage that proved that it was a fake, only for someone to write an entire screed about how you shouldn't read too much into footage that had been zoomed into much as you could pretty see whatever you wanted to see. I don't know, like quad ruptures and calf muscles perhaps...

If it wasn't this thread it was definately linked to from here somewhere. It seems to be the same old "blind them with science" approach to try and convince the heathens. Mid tarsal bend, dermal ridges, IM ratios. It all stinks of desperation to me. If the PG footage was that clear it would be undeniable, but surprise surprise it isn't. Well what do you know...

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL

Other than Noll, who left? Your source? Not EB, I hope. I was told it was because of his overbearing personality.

Noll left quite some time ago, but I can think of a handful of others who left the BFRO, and they all frequent the BFF. Let's see...

Hairy Man and RB (posted Aug 1, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12233

"RB and I are no longer a part of the BFRO. After years of being associated with the group, it was just time for us to part ways." -- Hairy Man

Redwolf (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115

"I am sure this will not come as a surprise to anyone, but after five years, I am resigning from the BFRO and my associating with Matt Moneymaker."

Fishbone35 (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12119&st=0&#entry249092

"I completely agree with everything Kathy said. The only difference is that I quit on Saturday."

Tsiatko (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249194

"As you know. I was lied to and accused of being on drugs. after I tried to tell people what Matt was doing."

JayleeD (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=20&#entry249285

"Yes, I left after being a member for a little over 3 months because I didn't agree with the way that MM was handling things, or NOT handling things I should say"

StacyInMi (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249125

"Heck, I only stuck it out 5 months before I bailed, and that was plenty long enough to be able to verify that everything Kathy's stated above is dead-on accurate."

Silva is another ex-BFRO member who was 'booted' some time ago.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772
(posted June 6, 2005)
"As recently as September 2004 (2 months before he [MM] booted me)..."

She also makes this comment about 3000 BFRO members (something you've mentioned a couple times):

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772
"Last thing though, the BFRO never had anywhere close to 3000 members. The most I ever saw was 114. Currently it stands at approx 106 (insider info)."

Where do you get your numbers (3000) from?

Not counting Noll, that's at least EIGHT other BFF members who are now ex-BFROers. I'm pretty sure that's not a complete list either.

Please don't insult me by suggesting I use EB as a source for ANYTHING other than amusement. The man is delusional.

RayG

[bruto]

LAL writes:

You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years...

We're all seeing what we want to see. So are you, because there's nothing really to see. The film is not good enough. What do you mean that the film has held up to intense scrutiny? It's been called a hoax and a fake by many, and accepted by others, hasn't it? It hasn't been accepted as scientific evidence by anyone, has it? That it has continued to be scrutinized at all for 40 years seems a testament to the tenacity of bigfoot hopefuls more than to its quality.

So let me see if I have this straight. Patterson, a notorious deadbeat and ne-er do well so desperately in need of money he went to jail for not paying his rent, is acknowledged probably to have rented a suit "since he intended to make a documentary and reenactments were a standard way of doing things" (WOW!) but there's no reason to suspect he used it. I mean, just because someone who planned to do a reenactment in a bigfoot suit just happened to be instrumental in the production of a bigfoot movie, it would presumably be excessive scoffticism to find the coincidence a little odd? Gimlin, who rented a camera whose operation he seems not to have mastered and without enough film, believed at one point that he was hoaxed, but thought better of it for reasons not quite made clear, but we're expected to accept this whole film because it's generally agreed Patterson and Gimlin were too stupid to carry off a good hoax?

How could I possibly doubt such an outstanding piece of evidence?

edited for typos

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
LAL writes:

You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years...

We're all seeing what we want to see. So are you, because there's nothing really to see. The film is not good enough.

Of course it is. I saw it first on a big screen and I have it on DVD. I've lost count of how many times I've watched it.

What do you mean that the film has held up to intense scrutiny? It's been called a hoax and a fake by many, and accepted by others, hasn't it? It hasn't been accepted as scientific evidence by anyone, has it?

Only by some scientists who aren't and weren't afraid to stick their necks out, beginning with Yerkes. I've posted three or four reports so far. Have you followed any of the reasons it can't be a man in a suit?


That it has continued to be scrutinized at all for 40 years seems a testament to the tenacity of bigfoot hopefuls more than to its quality.

Or the tenacity of sceptics in clinging to their denial no matter what.

So let me see if I have this straight. Patterson, a notorious deadbeat and ne-er do well so desperately in need of money he went to jail for not paying his rent, is acknowledged probably to have rented a suit "since he intended to make a documentary and reenactments were a standard way of doing things" (WOW!) but there's no reason to suspect he used it.
There's no evidence he had a suit, but even if he did, that's not what's on that film.

He didn't go to jail for not paying his rent. He failed to get the camera back on time. He wanted to leave something for his wife, according to one of Long's witnesses. Long seems to have found something evil in that.

I mean, just because someone who planned to do a reenactment in a bigfoot suit just happened to be instrumental in the production of a bigfoot movie, it would presumably be excessive scoffticism to find the coincidence a little odd?

Why would it be odd for a couple of men out to photograph tracks to stumble on the trackmaker? Would it have been better if they didn't know about tracks and went filming where there'd never been any?


Gimlin, who rented a camera whose operation he seems not to have mastered and without enough film,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Patterson rent the camera? There were a couple of reels of film.


believed at one point that he was hoaxed, but thought better of it for reasons not quite made clear, but we're expected to accept this whole film because it's generally agreed Patterson and Gimlin were too stupid to carry off a good hoax?

Do you know the state of the art of costume making at the time? Biomechanics? They weren't stupid, but they had neither the money nor the expertise to pull it off. The BBC with money and expertise couldn't pull it off. Bob Heironimus certainly didn't. Have you seen him in motion?

It was suggested a third party hoaxed them both, and Gimlin considered that, but saw no way that was possible. What's your source on him ever believing he was hoaxed?

How could I possibly doubt such an outstanding piece of evidence?

How could you possibly think character assassination disproves the authenticity of the film?

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Noll left quite some time ago, but I can think of a handful of others who left the BFRO, and they all frequent the BFF. Let's see...

>snip<

She also makes this comment about 3000 BFRO members (something you've mentioned a couple times):

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772


Where do you get your numbers (3000) from?

Not sure. The BFRO website, possibly, or Alton Higgins. I have his e-mails in a saved folder, but AOL is telling me they're not currently available. I belong to a group (not Sasquatch related) that has over fifty members but I've only seen a couple of dozen. There are over 400 members in BFF, according to their website, but how many post? Maybe 3000 people have joined the BFRO and were never heard from again. ;)

Not counting Noll, that's at least EIGHT other BFF members who are now ex-BFROers. I'm pretty sure that's not a complete list either.

How many were curators?

Please don't insult me by suggesting I use EB as a source for ANYTHING other than amusement. The man is delusional.


Sorry. He was the one who brought up Noll and Powell and others leaving. There's no whistling smiley on this board.

I ran across the thread on Kathy quitting earlier this evening while looking for something tube pointed me to. No one seeems to be trashing the group as a whole, and not all seem to be trashing MM.

Even if it's disintegrating now, I think they've accomplished a lot. I wish them a speedy repair.

[clarsct]

WOW. You guys have spent 27 pages on this rot?


Ummm. Isn't that poor horse dead?

[LAL]

"Hoax Hallmarks

True hoaxes have certain hallmarks, and such is the case with hominoid hoaxes. In fact, the Fox TV show used two such "genuine" hoaxes in an effort to smear the Patterson film by association. A hoaxed hominoid film will usually not be attributable to any specific person, it will be provided anonymously, so whoever filmed it cannot be grilled by specialists who will be able to quickly expose the fraud. Also, the place where the filming occurred will not be provided, so experts cannot return to the scene and check for footprints, measure the creature against items (tree limbs, rocks, etc.) in the background, or bring tracking dogs to see what their reaction will be. (Because of a hominoid's overpowering stench, even tracking dogs will recoil from it, while a human in a suit will be pursued as if the suit did not exist.)

In contrast to a hoaxer's typical behavior, Roger Patterson went right out
from the sighting and called several area experts, begging them to come to the scene and to bring tracking dogs. None of the experts would come. However, several friends within the community of bigfoot hunters did come to the scene to thoroughly examine it for several days afterward, so there is no doubt that the creature was there, she left numerous clear tracks that were photographed and cast in plaster, and her weight was in the 600 to 800 pound range because the tracks she left sank a full inch into the hard-packed sand at the creek bank, while a 200 pound man walking near her tracks sank only about a quarter of an inch. These facts are utterly undeniable, and they were utterly avoided in the piece presented as fact on "World's Greatest Hoaxes."

Technical Evidence

1) It was a bright, cloudless day with sunlight glinting off the creature's hair as she walked. In close-up and at very slow motion it is easy to see her muscles rippling in her right shoulder and in her right thigh, just as they would be visible in a human with those body parts exposed. If it had been a human in a suit, the suit would have to have been glued to the skin to achieve such an effect, but in the act of gluing, the subtle interaction between muscle and skin would be lost. Even today, in 1999, Hollywood special effects wizards find it extremely difficult to portray such subtle subcutaneous movements. In 1967 it was flatly impossible (check out "Planet Of The Apes").

2) The creature's arms are markedly longer than human arms, with elbows that clearly articulate well below where the elbows of a human in a suit would articulate. The added length of the humerus (shoulder to elbow) is four, five, or even six inches, which in anatomical terms is a light-year, and which causes the hands to swing down near the knees, whereas in a human the hands reach only to mid-thigh or above. There is literally no reasonable comparison between the two.

3) The creature's breasts are large, pendulous, and quite noticeable when she turns to face Patterson as he films. In close-up and slow motion (conspicuously avoided in the Fox show), it is easy to see their fluid sway as she turns, and their distinct "bounce" as she takes two steps. They are indistinguishable from human mammary tissue in motion, yet if they were an attachment to a modern body suit they would move more like silicone or gel implants. And in 1967 they would no doubt have looked like the original implant "nosecones."

4) The creature's body is extraordinarily thick throughout all of its parts and in every dimension, much more so than a similarly proportioned human (as seen in the accompanying "true" hoaxes). The thighs are massive and flow quite naturally into equally thick buttocks. When the creature turns to observe Patterson, the movement begins with a smooth shift of the hips that follows up through a swing of the entire upper torso, which reveals a shoulder width of approximately 30 percent more than humans have. Such outsized dimensions are not possible to duplicate with a human in a suit and still retain even a semblance of the "natural" movements seen in the film.

5) The creature's walk has been carefully analyzed by specialists in biomechanics in both England and Russia. Their conclusion is that its walk is completely natural, yet unmistakably non-human. The torso never rises above several degrees from vertical, while humans walk with their torsos at or near vertical. The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step. Humans lock their knees with each step. So once again, there is no reasonable comparison to be made except that humans and the Patterson creature walk upright on two legs."

And:

"One more such breach that needs to be mentioned is this: Bob Gimlin is still alive, yet his name was not mentioned in "World's Greatest Hoaxes." Why? Because Gimlin has insisted all of his long life that the film is genuine. Now, to question the authenticity of the film is to question the integrity of Bob Gimlin, and that is not easy to do for the following reason. When money for the film began to roll in, Roger Patterson ruthlessly cut Bob Gimlin out of any participation in the proceeds. If the film had been a hoax and Bob Gimlin had known about it, that would have been an insane move for Patterson to make. All Gimlin would have had to do was expose the hoax to make the $25,000 that was being offered at the time for conclusive proof about it one way or the other. Gimlin did not offer such proof, even at the lowest point in his relationship with Patterson.

What that means is this: If Patterson did indeed fake the film, he clearly did so without Bob Gimlin's knowledge. And that means the person in the suit (Jerry Romney if you believe the Fox TV hoaxers) was parading around in front of a man armed with a high-powered hunting rifle who would have been well within his legal (if not moral) rights to shoot him dead and take him home as a priceless "trophy." So it seems unlikely that Jerry Romney, or anyone short of a complete imbecile, could have been talked into getting into that suit on that particular day."

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-FoxTV.htm

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
There are over 400 members in BFF, according to their website, but how many post? Maybe 3000 people have joined the BFRO and were never heard from again. ;)


Not sure where yer getting yer info from, but on the main page of the BFF it states:

We have 1,971 registered members

That's significantly more than 400. Are we talking about the same BFF? As for your 3000 membership claim for the BFRO, since you're 'not sure' where you got those numbers, are you willing to quit flashing it about as though it were factual?

Members, not curators. You said there was an exodus of curators.


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115
"Saturday, a long time Curator quit. Shortly afterwards Matt removed two other Curators over assumed associations with the one who quit. Matt lied to the group about why they left or were removed. Matt doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy and seems unable to tell the truth if it incriminates himself. When he is caught, he will make up any rumor that he can think of to discredit person’s statements. He stated that one Curator was power hungry, when in fact he was just trying to get some organization started in the group. This is something that many of us Curators have been promised by Matt, but never saw. We will never see it because Matt will not give control to any other member. The BFRO is a dictatorship not a democracy."

Redwolf is a former curator, and indicates three other curators quit/were removed. That's four in addition to Noll. Fishbone35 may have been one of those four, because he also calls himself a curator and he indicates he quit on a Saturday. In any case, that's at least FOUR additional curators.

Sorry. He was the one who brought up Noll and Powell and others leaving. There's no whistling smiley on this board.

All the info concerning members/curators leaving the BFRO came directly from the BFF board. The ONLY reason to visit Beckjord's website is for entertainment purposes, there's certainly little if anything there that's newsworthy (or truthful).

I ran across the thread on Kathy quitting earlier this evening while looking for something tube pointed me to. No one seeems to be trashing the group, and not all seem to be trashing MM.

I agree, no one seems to condemn the group as a whole, but I've not seen very many kind words for Mr. Moneymaker.

Even if it's disintegrating now, I think they've accomplished a lot. I wish them a speedy repair.

They DO have a rather extensive database, but if many of those individual reports are examined too closely they seem to be lacking any verifiable evidence. There's even an accusation that MM has inserted info in the database that's just not factual. (claiming he interviewed all three witnesses for example, when he only spoke with one -- that one's on the BFF too)

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by fsol
This whole thread is a joke right?

My favorite bit was when somebody claimed to have found an anomaly in the PG footage that proved that it was a fake, only for someone to write an entire screed about how you shouldn't read too much into footage that had been zoomed into much as you could pretty see whatever you wanted to see. I don't know, like quad ruptures and calf muscles perhaps...

If it wasn't this thread it was definately linked to from here somewhere. It seems to be the same old "blind them with science" approach to try and convince the heathens. Mid tarsal bend, dermal ridges, IM ratios. It all stinks of desperation to me. If the PG footage was that clear it would be undeniable, but surprise surprise it isn't. Well what do you know...

What do you know?

Are you referring to the "bell-shaped object"? There isn't one.

So, the cry goes out for scientists to look at it, but when they do, scofftics don't understand a word they say. Noted.

Here's something else you won't understand:

"Dear Editor,

I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool.

I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less contrive.

Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected?

Ah..the mystique of it all.

Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG

That's significantly more than 400. Are we talking about the same BFF?

That's how much they've grown since I joined last year, apparently. I hadn't checked since then.


As for your 3000 membership claim for the BFRO, since you're 'not sure' where you got those numbers, are you willing to quit flashing it about as though it were factual?

Sure. I thought I could pull it right out of Alton's e-mails, but I can't. I'm afraid to find out what else is gone.


Redwolf is a former curator, and indicates three other curators quit/were removed. That's four in addition to Noll. Fishbone35 may have been one of those four, because he also calls himself a curator and he indicates he quit on a Saturday. In any case, that's at least FOUR additional curators.

All the info concerning members/curators leaving the BFRO came directly from the BFF board. The ONLY reason to visit Beckjord's website is for entertainment purposes, there's certainly little if anything there that's newsworthy (or truthful).

I checked to see if there was any substantiation for his claims about MM, but I couldn't find anything but more raving.


I agree, no one seems to condemn the group as a whole, but I've not seen very many kind words for Mr. Moneymaker.


He seems to have a talent for ticking people off.


They DO have a rather extensive database, but if many of those individual reports are examined too closely they seem to be lacking any verifiable evidence. There's even an accusation that MM has inserted info in the database that's just not factual. (claiming he interviewed all three witnesses for example, when he only spoke with one -- that one's on the BFF too)

RayG

Yeah. That's too bad. But from the same post:

"The Great thing about BFRO is they have the best clearing house for Bigfoot sightings in North America. I think they do a pretty good job in weeding out the phony reports, obvious hoaxes, and the nuts who spotted Bigfoot stepping off a UFO."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115

I use the sight sometimes for articles and very occasionally for sightings (Skamania County lost it's lead, last time I checked, so I'll have to stop saying it has the highest sighting rate in the country). It's still a great website even if MM is a jerk.

There's an interesting list in Murphy's book on # of sightings with tracks in several states. Someone asked about a per cent. There's one, as soon as I figure it out.

[fsol]

Originally posted by LAL
What do you know?

Are you referring to the "bell-shaped object"? There isn't one.

So, the cry goes out for scientists to look at it, but when they do, scofftics don't understand a word they say. Noted.

Here's something else you won't understand:

"Dear Editor,

I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool.

I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less contrive.

Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected?

Ah..the mystique of it all.

Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"


*sigh* We learnt the names of the muscles at school. What's not to understand? Whats interesting is that in one post you reason away the lack of arse jiggle by explaining it is all down to the compliant gait, whilst this guy you quoted talks about visible contraction and expansion of the gluteus maximus. Wouldn't that make the arse jiggle if it were true? Or is it a different type of jiggle we are talking about here?

Edit: Also, what does this guy know about making suits to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a suit could be made?

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
I checked to see if there was any substantiation for his claims about MM, but I couldn't find anything but more raving.


Why bother with Beckjord's site, when all the info is included on the BFF?

Three more BFRO 'members' indicate they're no longer members -- Blackdog, jimf, and Susan. (all posted on Aug 4, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12119&st=120

He seems to have a talent for ticking people off.

Doesn't he though? Keep reading that link above, it's a real eye-opener. (specifically the post from JayleeD concerning what Gregg Clay had to say)

I use the sight sometimes for articles and very occasionally for sightings (Skamania County lost it's lead, last time I checked, so I'll have to stop saying it has the highest sighting rate in the country). It's still a great website even if MM is a jerk.

I sometimes check it out to see what's the latest bullsh*t from MM, but I seldom check it out for its database. No matter how high we pile the anecdotes, it won't bag a squatch.

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step.


Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lock.gif

The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..

[LAL]

Originally posted by fsol
*sigh* We learnt the names of the muscles at school. What's not to understand? Whats interesting is that in one post you reason away the lack of arse jiggle by explaining it is all down to the compliant gait, whilst this guy you quoted talks about visible contraction and expansion of the gluteus maximus. Wouldn't that make the arse jiggle if it were true? Or is it a different type of jiggle we are talking about here?

Must be. He's talking about contraction and expansion.

Edit: Also, what does this guy know about making suits to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a suit could be made?


At sixty, he's old enough to remember what costumes were like back then. Planet of the Apes was the best that had been done, and Chambers himself said he didn't make the suit; he wasn't that good. He wished he were. Are costumers required to have a degree related to anatomy before they can give an opinion?

A spokesperson from Disney said they were the only ones with the facillities to make a suit that good and they didn't do it. They estimated cost at $300,000 (in 1967 dollars). Also, they wouldn't have attempted building a suit; they'd have animated it.

The BBC's attempt, using the only synthetic fur available at the time, Dynel, is here:

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

There'd have had to have been some sort of prosthesis to get the arms right. They're 25% longer than Heironimus' and bend properly. The back on the creature is 20% longer. There's no match on the shoulder joints; they're a foot farther apart than on a man 6'5". But Heironimus said no padding was used. And people believe him?

"Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities."

If you guys really think that could be a guy in a suit, the line for the bridge and the waterfront property forms on your left.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I love how people are quite happy to say "you can quite clearly see..." in reference to the PG film. All I can see is a blurry, hairy figure strolling nonchalantly away, and that's after repeated viewings.

The film is so grainy and jerky that reading details into it like musculature movement beneath the skin is frankly a stretch. I'm no stanger to photography, film and checking images for details, and I am beginning to think there is some real wish fulfillment going on here. Like a Rorschach test, people project there own beliefs onto the almost blank slate that is the PG film. If we discard is as ambigous and a one-off, what are we left with to prove the existence of a viable population of scarily massive creatures? Footprints and nothing else?

Perhaps comedian Mitch Hedburg was right, perhaps the scariest thing about Bigfoot is the fact that he is blurry in real life too?

[Skeptical Greg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Patterson rent the camera? There were a couple of reels of film. Where is that 2nd reel, by the way?

What is on the film before the last ~ 2 minutes that include the well known footage ?

[Skeptical Greg]

t sixty, he's old enough to remember what costumes were like back then. Planet of the Apes was the best that had been done, and Chambers himself said he didn't make the suit; he wasn't that good. He wished he were. Are costumers required to have a degree related to anatomy before they can give an opinion? Planet of the Apes, didn't use ' suits '.. Only head pieces and hands..


Ever hear of ' 2001 A Space Odyssey '..

Check out the apes.. I heard a rumor, they weren't nominated for a costume Oscar, because it wasn't generally known that they were costumes ...

To suggest that a fake patty was some kind of technological impossibility at the time is absurd..

[LAL]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I love how people are quite happy to say "you can quite clearly see..." in reference to the PG film. All I can see is a blurry, hairy figure strolling nonchalantly away, and that's after repeated viewings.

The film is so grainy and jerky that reading details into it like musculature movement beneath the skin is frankly a stretch. I'm no stanger to photography, film and checking images for details, and I am beginning to think there is some real wish fulfillment going on here. Like a Rorschach test, people project there own beliefs onto the almost blank slate that is the PG film.

Does that apply to people who see seams and folds as well?

If we discard is as ambigous and a one-off, what are we left with to prove the existence of a viable population of scarily massive creatures? Footprints and nothing else?

Perhaps comedian Mitch Hedburg was right, perhaps the scariest thing about Bigfoot is the fact that he is blurry in real life too?

What version are you seeing and where?

Bryne noted that even if the film were a hoax, there's still plenty of evidence to indicate these creatures are real.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Bryne's honest opinion was that Patterson and Gimlin weren't smart enough to pull off such a hoax. Krantz said Patterson looked blank when asked about some of the technicalities he would have had to know to pull it off.


Why do Footers continually quote the same bogus claims to bolster their case? What technicalities was Patterson questioned about that he would have to know to pull this off? How to put on a monkey suit?

Here’s a good link debunking the film:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600089

And another:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

…with this quote:

In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution's director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film. He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man's; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that "there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

Another point…Naturalist Frank Beebe noted in 1987 after seeing the film, "From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest facts to go against is that there is no evidence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere of primate (ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely primate. So either a large primate got stranded in North America-or the film is a fake."

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of the science of cryptozoology and President of the International Society of Cryptozoology, believes that the film is of a man in a suit.

And…despite what Bigfoot fans write in their books and articles, there are a number of negative opinions of make-up experts like Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker, Howard Berger, and many others. These make-up artists are not impressed by the subject of the Patterson film and believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise.


So...we can cherry pick our experts left and right, but the fact is that most scientists expert in anthropology, primate biology and so forth do not believe in Bigfoot. The film is not that convincing. So, as the years go by sans a Bigfoot body or a better film...support for the existence of Bigfoot will continue to dwindle.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by clarsct
WOW. You guys have spent 27 pages on this rot?


Ummm. Isn't that poor horse dead?

It's not a horse, it's a bison. Haven't you been paying attention? ;)

[LAL]

Did Gimlin really say he could have been hoaxed?

""Chris Packham is a total fraud. He lied about Gimlin saying that after years of reflection it could have been a man in a costume, etc. Gimlin never said anything even remotely similar to that. Curiously, they don't have a tape or any kind of recording of Gimlin making that statement, yet they spent thousands of dollars travelling to different countries in order to interview people for that production. Did you ever wonder why they could only quote him? ... They lied. Appleby now blames it on Packham. Packham has no comment. He got paid and delivered his show. That's all he cared about.

Packham had also brought some old receipt of Patterson's post Patty-footage film licensing to Patterson's widow's residence. Then he set up Mrs. Patterson to allow him to get close enough to Roger's papers so that he could make it look as though he pulled the old receipt from Roger's papers. This scam wasn't shown in the film/TV version of the program, but was used for the magazine version of production.

Packham and Appleby also defrauded Patricia Patterson with a contract saying that their interviews with her, and their use of the Patterson footage were for a production entitled "World's Greatest" -- instead of the actual title "World's Greatest Hoaxes". Fox Television is currently being sued by Mrs. Patterson's attorney for this part of the fraud. Others in the BBC have already stated to us that Packham's production was pretty discpicable. The only way he could get the money for this production was by assuring the folks at the BBC that he could solve all the world's greatest mysteries in one production. So when some twenty-something punk makes that kind of superman promise, there's nothing he won't stoop to in order to make it look like he accomplished his goal. The Packham/Appleby production was a fraud, and the BBC admits it."

As stated on the first page I welcome all contributions and opinions, and fully admit my ignorance when faced by serious researchers, however my personal opinion of most TV shows concerning the Phenomenon, including the 'X-Creatures' programme is that they simply rehash what has been said in previous efforts (most laughable recently of which was the Fox show 'Worlds Greatest Hoaxes-Secrets finally revealed), and have never stated to the contrary.

Nevertheless this is one of the media with which a sceptical general public forms an opinion on the subject, and I believe that they should be consequently examined, especially if you are questioning the validity of the 'evidence' presented in them, as Matt did so eloquently above.



Letters sent to BBC Wildlife magazine concerning the Packham Investigation"


http://bigfoot.itgo.com/bbcpackham.htm

[Skeptical Greg]

In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution's director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film. He finds many problems with the film,.............. :eek:


Do tell.. Napier is one of the experts, that LAL suggests supports her position regarding the existence of the creature.. Can you spell ' data mining ' ....

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

Do you know the state of the art of costume making at the time? Biomechanics? They weren't stupid, but they had neither the money nor the expertise to pull it off. The BBC with money and expertise couldn't pull it off.



LAL,

As much as I enjoy this discussion, I’m going to have to ask you to either do your research or stop being purposefully dishonest. Those at the BBC associated with the special you reference did not have the budget for making an ape suit, so they borrowed an already made one to roughly show how a fake ape-man film could be made. It was never intended as a side-by-side comparative duplicate of the Patty suit.

Furthermore, stating that special effects wizards in 1967 could not have made a Patty suit is a gross exaggeration, but stating that even today they could not do it is an outright falsehood. You may counter by claiming no one has succeeded, but I might add that of those qualified to do it…no one probably cares enough about this nonsense to waste their time.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I'll ask again since you guys are locked in a pretty earnest, learned debate and might have missed it...

Leaving aside the film for the moment, what actual physical evidence is there of a viable population of enormous primates in North America?

The film to most people is a man in a suit; it looks like a man in a suit and, sad to say, it probably is a man in a suit. The pictures seen earlier in this discussion showing a man in a suit next to the film still look pretty much like the film still, only in better focus. I discount the footprint-depth debate because they could have been made at any time by a hoaxer before or after the filming.

Since its the one and only and looks pretty fake, do the Bigfoot believers have something solid to go on other than the piece of film of this phenomenon? Huge bones? Huge piles of scat? Dead young? More film I haven't heard about? Forgive me asking all this but I've only just joined this forum and recently seen several of the documentaries circulating about this.

If all there is are some sightings from afar or in the dark, a few footprints and a dodgy filmclip then we're surely wasting time here nitpicking. If there were some real physical evidence then this debate would be going on in a forum other than this one, yes? And why no more footage? Everything these days has a camera built in, more and more people are going into the woods for recreation and still nothing solid. It's enough to make a sceptic of anyone, wouldn't you agree?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys


Since its the one and only and looks pretty fake, do the Bigfoot believers have something solid to go on other than the piece of film of this phenomenon? Huge bones? Huge piles of scat? Dead young? More film I haven't heard about? Forgive me asking all this but I've only just joined this forum and recently seen several of the documentaries circulating about this.

If all there is are some sightings from afar or in the dark, a few footprints and a dodgy filmclip then we're surely wasting time here nitpicking. If there were some real physical evidence then this debate would be going on in a forum other than this one, yes? And why no more footage?

There are basically three major Bigfoot films. That is, these are the remaining three that haven’t been debunked, and because all of them are of such poor quality…it’s not likely they ever will be. The images themselves are so blurry and crappy no one can definitely say it’s a bloke in a suit.

The Patterson-Gimlin film, the Freeman film and the Memorial Day film. What? Haven’t heard of these last two? That’s because they’re pretty shoddy looking. In this day and age, where everyone has cameras, and most have video cameras and digital cameras…the best film we have of Bigfoot is from 1967. And that one ain’t even that good…

What’s funny is that with all of these sightings of 8-9’ tall Bigfeet we have only three films of poor quality, and in every one the figure is of average human height. Not only that, but in every film “the creature� looks like a bloke in a suit.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by fsol

Edit: Also, what does this guy know about making suits to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a suit could be made?


Because he's Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist!

Everyone knows what they teach you in medical school in the field of Orthopedic medicine:

a. Musculo-skeletal doctorin'
b. Makin' of Monkey Suits

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

There is more film of Bigfoot out there? Why wasn't I informed by the Discovery Channel? Does anyone know where I might be able to view these clips or where there's stills on the internet?

I'll begin checking them out right away. It seemed a little odd that there was only one film when stuff like UFOs, Rods and Nessie have enough footage lying around to make several films of Kevin Costner proportions. I realise that if it truly exists then Bigfoot would be a reclusive animal, but still that's a real dearth of visual evidence. I take it there's quite a few still photos taken by holiday makers, campers, etc even if snapped inadvertantly in the frame?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys

I take it there's quite a few still photos taken by holiday makers, campers, etc even if snapped inadvertantly in the frame?

That’s the strange part…or, er, maybe it isn’t.

There are no still photos of Bigfoot that I am aware of. Just the three films.

Here's a link describing the films. Not sure where to download them:

http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp

[Cleon]

I seem to recall one from years back involving a Bigfoot on the edge of a cliff...Could be wrong about that, though, I saw it on TV as a kid.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL,

As much as I enjoy this discussion, I’m going to have to ask you to either do your research or stop being purposefully dishonest. Those at the BBC associated with the special you reference did not have the budget for making an ape suit, so they borrowed an already made one to roughly show how a fake ape-man film could be made. It was never intended as a side-by-side comparative duplicate of the Patty suit.

Furthermore, stating that special effects wizards in 1967 could not have made a Patty suit is a gross exaggeration, but stating that even today they could not do it is an outright falsehood. You may counter by claiming no one has succeeded, but I might add that of those qualified to do it…no one probably cares enough about this nonsense to waste their time.

LAL could counter by claiming that no one has succeeded but if they had succeeded, of course she'd say that, because they had succeeded! LAL's skepticism regarding the possibility of a hoax matches that of some of the rest of us regarding the existence of bigfoot.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
:eek:


Do tell.. Napier is one of the experts, that LAL suggests supports her position regarding the existence of the creature.. Can you spell ' data mining ' ....

He stated in print he believed they exist and wrote a couple of books . He headed the Smithsonian's primate department. I've already noted there are things I don't agree with him on, such as his belief H. sapiens descended from Neandertals. His work is pretty dated.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
LAL,

As much as I enjoy this discussion, I’m going to have to ask you to either do your research or stop being purposefully dishonest. Those at the BBC associated with the special you reference did not have the budget for making an ape suit, so they borrowed an already made one to roughly show how a fake ape-man film could be made. It was never intended as a side-by-side comparative duplicate of the Patty suit.

Did you read the article?

"Packham tries to debunk the Patterson footage by showing how a skilled Hollywood makeup artist could assemble a matching costume, and how the footage can then be perfectly recreated at the actual location.

It sounds simple and logical. That's why they were given a lot of money to find and hire a leading Hollywood costume maker.

How could it go wrong if they had plenty of money to pay for the world's best fakers?

The images below show what Packham and Appleby delivered -- their "proof" that the Patterson footage is a hoax.

It is bizarre to watch this show. At one point there is a split-screen, with the two moving figures side by side. Chris Packham's narration proclaims that has has accurately recreated the hoax with this identical costume."

And:

"The production money from the BBC was given to Packham and Appleby based on Packham's script, which confidentally proclaims success in recreating the hoax. The script was written a long time before they actually tried to make a matching costume. Packham and Appleby assured BBC executives they could easily do it. There was no concern about them failing.

The script was approved and locked down by the BBC long before it was obvious that they couldn't make a matching costume. When the show was delivered to the BBC, the matching costume element couldn't be cut out, because it's the crux of the debunking argument. All Packham and Appleby could do at that stage is try to emphasize other lesser important conjecture, and distort peripheral facts to make some kind of circumstantial case for a hoax.

The BBC never came clean about the most profound revelation of their "investigation" -- it's basically impossible to recreate the Patterson costume. Their well funded attempt and failure strongly suggests that it is very difficult, if not practically impossible, to recreate the bio mechanical dynamics seen on the moving Patterson figure. "

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

I can hardly stop being dishonest when I wasn't dishonest to begin with.


Furthermore, stating that special effects wizards in 1967 could not have made a Patty suit is a gross exaggeration, but stating that even today they could not do it is an outright falsehood. You may counter by claiming no one has succeeded, but I might add that of those qualified to do it…no one probably cares enough about this nonsense to waste their time.

I think you're the one who needs to do the research. I take it you're too young to remember a time before computer graphics.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do it today. You might see that if you'd get over the idea you can see seams.

Noll brought up some good points:

"A large and detailed project such as building a suit or altering one would have had family and friends noticing the time and energy spent on it. Producing a hoaxed film prior to the Bluff Creek trip would also have taken more time then actually seeing and filming a real Sasquatch while down there. Then there would of been the pre-viewing of the results until they got it right, unless it only took one take as has been alleged.

I think Roger was a person who could not keep on track with any one project, including the paying of family bills and keeping a day job. Producing a hoaxed film of a Sasquatch to generate money is such a long shot that even Roger would of balked at the effort versus the potential payoff. No one has been able to make a hoaxed Bigfoot film and have it last more than a couple of weeks nor generate any significant money.

People are giving Roger far more credit than due him for his art work. Who knows if the drawings he sported were not just copied and altered a bit (much like a certain Morris suit everyone is talking about) from other sources or actual pictures?

The real mystery in all of this is Long's motive... He had it in for the man from the start. Did Roger do something to a family member of Long's? Was one of Long's witnesses actually a relative who he feels was ripped off by Roger? Something stinks and we need to start looking for the real source! "

Even if it had been possible, it doesn't look like it was possible for either Patterson or Morris, but don't let me try to talk you out of your denial.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Cleon
I seem to recall one from years back involving a Bigfoot on the edge of a cliff...Could be wrong about that, though, I saw it on TV as a kid.

It was taken by Ivan Marx and is suspect because of his camera shenanigans after the Bossburg incident. It's online somewhere, but I'm not finding it right now.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
That’s the strange part…or, er, maybe it isn’t.

There are no still photos of Bigfoot that I am aware of. Just the three films.

Here's a link describing the films. Not sure where to download them:

http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp

They're copyrighted. No downloads. There are other films as well. LMS has the MD footage, Freeman 1994 and PGF.

There's also Clarke and the inconclusive Marble Mountain footage.

There are a number of stills. My favorite was from a roll that was left and never picked up. It shows a massive dark blobby looking thing charging through the woods. The photographer had apparently had enough.

Most of the stills are inconclusive. Too much foliage, lack of substantiation.......some may just be blobsquatches. Some are out and out fakes. There's one from Quebec currently being hotly debated on BFF.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
There are basically three major Bigfoot films. That is, these are the remaining three that haven’t been debunked, and because all of them are of such poor quality…it’s not likely they ever will be. The images themselves are so blurry and crappy no one can definitely say it’s a bloke in a suit.

The Patterson-Gimlin film, the Freeman film and the Memorial Day film. What? Haven’t heard of these last two? That’s because they’re pretty shoddy looking. In this day and age, where everyone has cameras, and most have video cameras and digital cameras…the best film we have of Bigfoot is from 1967. And that one ain’t even that good…

What’s funny is that with all of these sightings of 8-9’ tall Bigfeet we have only three films of poor quality, and in every one the figure is of average human height. Not only that, but in every film “the creature� looks like a bloke in a suit.

To borrow a phrase from you, either do the research, or stop being deliberately dishonest.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years.

Ditto.

It has not 'held up', because people are calling it a fake. Anyone who thinks that Bigfoot doesn't exist must think that this film is a hoax by definition, whether they have seen it or not.

Significantly, this film has not been accessible to the public or professionals until fairly recently. Prior to VCRs it only existed as film and thus was out of the hands of general skepticism by repeated viewing and analysis. I don't know if the footage was even readily available after video players became common.

The film itself is missing. There are apparently a number of copies. I wonder if anyone can say whether the original film was edited and spliced. It seems that if nobody can compare any copy with the original film we can't know if copies show what the film did. But more importantly, we can't examine the original film to see if it was edited before anyone was shown it.

Attempts at recreations are only partly meaningful. If any recreation is 'convincing' to anyone, then the recreation was a success. The suit must be allowed to occasionally look fake, because the PGF creature occasionally looks fake. If a recreation actually appeared 'flawless' (whatever that would be), then it would exceed the realism of the PGF.

Begging, demanding or suggesting attempts at recreation is standard defense strategy for believers. The Bigfoot enthusiasts are always charged up with a degree of desperation of varying intensities. The propensity to shift burden of proof on the skeptic is strong. Rarely do the believers not try to make demands upon skeptics to prove (or disprove) this or that.

This myth is here to stay. No amount of time without confirmation will make it go away. Reality has never stopped fantacizers. After all, Bigfoot is fun and pretty harmless as a belief. It's not like promoting any other possible kind of myth... such as that bleach is an excellent mouthwash and gargle.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
I'll ask again since you guys are locked in a pretty earnest, learned debate and might have missed it...

[b]Leaving aside the film for the moment, what actual physical evidence is there of a viable population of enormous primates in North America?


Meldrum has over 100 casts of footprints in his collection (which is open for inspection at Idaho State). Jimmy Chilcutt, forensic fingerprint examaniner, who's the only expert on primate prints, found several of the casts compelling. They show dermal ridge patterns unlike either humans or apes, and casts taken years and hundreds of miles apart show these same patterns. Overall, the footprint evidence is probably the best evidence. If you'd like to check this out, read Chris Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch. I just got it from Amazon.com and it is by far the best book I've seen on this. It is loaded with photos and doesn't get so technical you need a degree in anthropology to understand it. There's an updated version in the works, and an LMS II on the way.


The film to most people is a man in a suit; it looks like a man in a suit and, sad to say, it probably is a man in a suit. The pictures seen earlier in this discussion showing a man in a suit next to the film still look pretty much like the film still, only in better focus. I discount the footprint-depth debate because they could have been made at any time by a hoaxer before or after the filming.


The feet can be seen sinking in to the depth of the prints. Prints of the same animal were cast 7 years prior to the filming. No hoax. Bob Titmus found where she'd squatted and watched the pair. If someone was in there hoaxing, how did they get out? The prints aren't just of an oversized human foot. They show adaptations for great weight and rugged terrain. The toes are intermediate in length between humans and Australopiths. Biomechanics was in its infancy in 1967. Its highly unlikely anyone would have had the expertise to pull off something like that. Experiments have been done by Dr. Esteban Sarmiento and in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's lab. One suggested method, debunked years ago by DR. Krantz, involves soaking a rubber mold of a human foot in kerosene. The resulting ridge patterns don't match the patterns on Sasquatch prints and the resulting material is too fragile to be of any use.


Since its the one and only and looks pretty fake, do the Bigfoot believers have something solid to go on other than the piece of film of this phenomenon? Huge bones? Huge piles of scat? Dead young? More film I haven't heard about? Forgive me asking all this but I've only just joined this forum and recently seen several of the documentaries circulating about this.


I think we've been over all that on this thread and on the thread Bigfoot Follies. (A cyber friend from Bigfoot Forums read this one - he said it took him hours.) Huge piles of scat, yes. Bones? Possibly one. I need to check this out. I saw something on it in passing. Dead anything gets quickly scavenged in the areas these animals inhabit.



If all there is are some sightings from afar or in the dark, a few footprints and a dodgy filmclip then we're surely wasting time here nitpicking. If there were some real physical evidence then this debate would be going on in a forum other than this one, yes? And why no more footage? Everything these days has a camera built in, more and more people are going into the woods for recreation and still nothing solid. It's enough to make a sceptic of anyone, wouldn't you agree?

There's film from Canada taken in April of this year and photos of a trackway found in in California, also in April. There have been thousands of sightings, many with tracks. There are maps and figures on this in Murphy's book.

Most people don't carry cameras, especially at night when they're just driving somewhere. The MD footage was got by alert campers who happened to have a camcorder and time to grab it.
In a face to face encounter with an 8' creature that supposedly doesn't exist, who would think to snap it's picture?

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

So let me get the facts straight for myself...


Pros
1. Eyewitness testimony from apparently sincere people

2. two or three film cllips of possible creature

3. Large footprints found

4. Native legends


Cons
1. The one semi-decent film is gone and unable to be scrutinised

2. No physical evidence exists besides footprints which vary widely in size and even shape

3. Evolutionary evidence is against it (no primates in N.America)

4. Associates of the film-makers now claim to have helped fake it.

5. Frankly amazing ability of 3-metre tall primates numbering several thousand to almost completely stay hidden in North America.


I have to say I am in the non-believer camp right now folks. Opinion on the one decent film of the creature is divided to say the least, and there's nothing else bar easily faked footprints and the testimony of eyewitnesses who tend to have seen the creature in less than ideal viewing circumstances. Various experts make compelling cases for the PG film creature, but just as many debunk it and to me it honestly looks like a guy in a suit.

What about modern technology? If there really are 3000 or more creatures out there, a figured mentioned by several academic BF believers as probable, then surely we can find them using modern technology. A creature that large must give off a fair amount of heat, surely they'd show up in infra-red overflight shots just as humans do in cop-show helicopter footage? What about setting up motion triggered cameras, I've seen that used to snap shots of escaped big-cats here in the UK? Buried motion detectors like those used at Area-51 and on the Mexican border for security? Have these been tried? If so, nothing can have been found and can only strengthen the case against the Sasquatch.

To say the evidence is stacked against the Sasquatch is putting it mildly.

[Kemo]

Originally posted by LAL
(Most people don't carry cameras, especially at night when they're just driving somewhere. The MD footage was got by alert campers who happened to have a camcorder and time to grab it.
In a face to face encounter with an 8' creature that supposedly doesn't exist, who would think to snap it's picture?

Why aren't deer hunters who use cameras like this http://www.basspro.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=49342&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=400-0-0&cmid=HFP2_1 constantly publishing photos of bigfeet?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Why do Footers continually quote the same bogus claims to bolster their case? What technicalities was Patterson questioned about that he would have to know to pull this off? How to put on a monkey suit?


Your naivety is showing, but as you said, you're new.


Here’s a good link debunking the film:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600089


I suppose it's difficult for you to find a source other than CSICOP. I've already read these and one's been posted, by RayG, as I recall.


Daegling debunks nothing here. There was a reenactment and Dahinden's measurements were accurate enough for a scale model of the site to be made. Even if the figure was two feet tall, the IM index remains the same.

Here's Noll:

"Using Trig., a distance of 130 feet, +/- 5 feet, for a subject height of 6 feet gives a tolerance range of +/- 3.35inches.

This means that a subject that is 72 inches tall, and viewed at 1500 inches in distance, but calculated or compared with something at a distance of 1560 inches will be actually 68.65 inches tall... but if it were 1620 inches, then it would be 75.35.

A plus or minus 5 foot distance equals about a 3" difference in apparent height. I can almost garantee that the measurements made at the film site of the photographers position and that of the subject for any given frame is as accurate as that. 5'9" to 6'3".

The formula for finding the height comes from meauring the subject height on the actual piece of film, the focal length of the lens used and the distance to the subect. This formula was developed by the RAF during WWII for photo-recon work over Germany.

By the way... this angle, feet to observer to top of head is just a little over 3 degrees. The resolution on the film needed to see 3 inches is 0.013 degrees... quite doable for the distance and film lens combination. The limit should be around .005 degrees for that distance."


And another:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

…with this quote:

Another point…Naturalist Frank Beebe noted in 1987 after seeing the film, "From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest facts to go against is that there is no evidence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere of primate (ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely primate. So either a large primate got stranded in North America-or the film is a fake."


Since no one's claiming Sasquatches evolved in NA, that hardly seems like a hard fact. Why didn't he consider the Bering Strait? A 20 - 22 million year old primate tooth has been found at John Day since then, incidently.


Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of the science of cryptozoology and President of the International Society of Cryptozoology, believes that the film is of a man in a suit.

He's dead, you know. Both he and Sanderson fully accepted the existance of relic hominids throught the world and wrote books on the subject.

Those quotes are from this article by Mark Chovinsky in Strange Magazine.

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

What's his source on Heuvelmans?
How can you take someone seriously who took Ray Wallace seriously? Why don't these guys ever address any of the hard stuff, like the Powder Mountain tracks, or Wrinkle Foot?


And…despite what Bigfoot fans write in their books and articles, there are a number of negative opinions of make-up experts like Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker, Howard Berger, and many others. These make-up artists are not impressed by the subject of the Patterson film and believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise.


And others totally disagree based on theirs.



So...we can cherry pick our experts left and right, but the fact is that most scientists expert in anthropology, primate biology and so forth do not believe in Bigfoot. The film is not that convincing. So, as the years go by sans a Bigfoot body or a better film...support for the existence of Bigfoot will continue to dwindle.

Nope. It's growing. Schaller, Goodall, Sarmiento and Swindler have "come out". Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by a collegue who doesn't agree with the conclusions. Michael Shermer has said there's a possibilty Sasquatches exist; seems even some sceptics are wavering.
New techniques may bring in confirmation from the field (my money's on Noll), and there could be a lucky shot or a roadkill yet. I only hope John Green lives long enough to say, "I told you so".

[LAL]

Originally posted by Kemo
Why aren't deer hunters who use cameras like this http://www.basspro.com/servlet/catalog.TextId?hvarTextId=49342&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=400-0-0&cmid=HFP2_1 constantly publishing photos of bigfeet?

Um, because they're only out for a few weeks a year, don't go far from the roads, are out in daylight and carry 30.06's instead of cameras? Just a guess.

Camera traps do have a chance of success and this is being tried.

It's been said Sasquatches find people, people don't find Sasquatches. They tend to avoid us like the plaugue we are. :p

[bruto]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
So let me get the facts straight for myself...


Pros
1. Eyewitness testimony from apparently sincere people

2. two or three film cllips of possible creature

3. Large footprints found

4. Native legends


Cons
1. The one semi-decent film is gone and unable to be scrutinised

2. No physical evidence exists besides footprints which vary widely in size and even shape

3. Evolutionary evidence is against it (no primates in N.America)

4. Associates of the film-makers now claim to have helped fake it.

5. Frankly amazing ability of 3-metre tall primates numbering several thousand to almost completely stay hidden in North America.


I have to say I am in the non-believer camp right now folks. Opinion on the one decent film of the creature is divided to say the least, and there's nothing else bar easily faked footprints and the testimony of eyewitnesses who tend to have seen the creature in less than ideal viewing circumstances. Various experts make compelling cases for the PG film creature, but just as many debunk it and to me it honestly looks like a guy in a suit.

What about modern technology? If there really are 3000 or more creatures out there, a figured mentioned by several academic BF believers as probable, then surely we can find them using modern technology. A creature that large must give off a fair amount of heat, surely they'd show up in infra-red overflight shots just as humans do in cop-show helicopter footage? What about setting up motion triggered cameras, I've seen that used to snap shots of escaped big-cats here in the UK? Buried motion detectors like those used at Area-51 and on the Mexican border for security? Have these been tried? If so, nothing can have been found and can only strengthen the case against the Sasquatch.

To say the evidence is stacked against the Sasquatch is putting it mildly.

Welcome to squatchland, Kenny. I think you've got it nicely condensed.

As for the motion triggered cameras, etc. there's a part of this thread nearer the beginning dealing with a bizarrely unfortunate attempt to strap some cameras to trees, which mysteriously fell down, and mention of some other expert attempting a blind with plastic lensed webcams or something like that. Make of it what you will, and take your pick of criticisms or excuses for the lack of better evidence.

I have consistently maintained that after this many years of searching by this many "experts," the two most likely explanations for the paucity of evidence are that bigfoot does not exist and/or that the people hunting for it are incompetent. As you may have guessed, this opinion is emphatically not shared by LAL, who believes that bigfoot is out there and that the people searching are doing a good job, but are hampered by bad luck, poor funding and lack of support from the scientific community.

[Skeptical Greg]

There's one from Quebec currently being hotly debated on BFF. Yes. It's degenerated into a debate over whether it is a deliberate hoax or an accident..

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Where is that 2nd reel, by the way?

What is on the film before the last ~ 2 minutes that include the well known footage ?

Green and Dahinden had it. It was just shots of scenery.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
They're copyrighted. No downloads. There are other films as well. LMS has the MD footage, Freeman 1994 and PGF.

There's also Clarke and the inconclusive Marble Mountain footage.

There are a number of stills. My favorite was from a roll that was left and never picked up. It shows a massive dark blobby looking thing charging through the woods. The photographer had apparently had enough.

Most of the stills are inconclusive. Too much foliage, lack of substantiation.......some may just be blobsquatches. Some are out and out fakes. There's one from Quebec currently being hotly debated on BFF.

Do you know links to any of these photos? I admit I haven't seen any stills except for the Cliff Crook one that is obviously a fake.

What Clarke and Marble Mountain footage are you speaking of? The only other decent footage I recall...in which a Bigfoot type creature is clearly visible...is the Snow Walker film, which has been exposed as a hoax.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
Green and Dahinden had it. It was just shots of scenery.

Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?

Something wrong here. Two major possibilities. Either they're fools of a high order (and how hard is it to hoax a fool of that order, I wonder?), or the missing footage shows things they did not want others to see, such as conspicuous fakery or inconsistency.

I'm perfectly happy to accept G&P's integrity, but if true, it must reinforce my contention that the people who are hunting bigfoot and who are coming up with so-called evidence are blunderers. How many different ways can one screw up and still be considered useful?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

And others totally disagree based on theirs.


But you seem to have been stating there was some kind of consensus among the experts. There isn't...

You may find a few make-up artists claim it couldn't have been faked in the 1960's, but that's a far cry from the BFRO claim that there's some kind of expert agreement that it was impossible to fake. Then again, it's not as if the BFRO Bigfoot Safari website has a wealth of accurate information.

2001: A Space Odyssey had ape costumes far better than Patty. Heck, some of the costumes in the original Star Trek were better...but its not as if we can really tell from Patterson's crappy film.

Regardless, making the claim that make-up artists of today could not replicate a Patty suit is asinine. Are you serious? You think a half-hearted attempt by the BBC somehow authenticates Patty??


Originally posted by LAL

Nope. It's growing. Schaller, Goodall, Sarmiento and Swindler have "come out". Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by a collegue who doesn't agree with the conclusions. Michael Shermer has said there's a possibilty Sasquatches exist; seems even some sceptics are wavering.
New techniques may bring in confirmation from the field (my money's on Noll), and there could be a lucky shot or a roadkill yet. I only hope John Green lives long enough to say, "I told you so".

There's always a possibility they exist...no skeptic would argue that. The evidence doesn't support your view, but there's a possibility...

...and Goodall only stated that they probably don't exist, but she would like them to.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by LAL
Um, because they're only out for a few weeks a year, don't go far from the roads, are out in daylight and carry 30.06's instead of cameras? Just a guess.

You've never met anyone who hunts, have you?

Please back up these statements of yours. Hunting seasons are open for at least half the year, and this doesn't include any poachers that may be out (day or night). Not to mention fishermen and other outdoorsmen (hiking, camping, and other activities are very common in the PNW). And if you think hunters don't carry cameras, you're severely deluded. Every hunter I know either carries acamera, or can't afford one. How else are you going to get a shot of the 8-point buck you just shot? (or turkey, bear, whatever). And don't go far from roads? That statement alone is enough to tell me you have no clue what hunters due, and are making things up on the fly just to support your preconcieved ideas. Most hunters look for places as far away from people as possible, because, you know, that's where the most animals are (and animals that are more likely to have less fear of people).

Sorry, but this statement of yours is just pure BS. You have no evidence, no backing, and no clue. I stand by that statement.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LAL
And what, in your opinion, is the whole habitat of the creature?
The cryptids I mentioned are all hominids. I have no idea if they're related or what evidence there is for them. Did you read my post where I pointed out the "Jersey Devil", as depicted in your post was a real-estate hoax? No comment?
In my opinion the animal's habitat is within the head of the people who believe it exists...
In the opinion of these people, sighting reports are reliable (a supposition I find nor satisfactory) evidence, thus providing means to access its geographic range. The sighting database (you posted a link hundreds of posts ago) has reports virtually from every USA continental state and a large part of Canada. So, assuming it exists, and that sightings are reliable, assumptions that I think are questionable, this area is the creature's geographic range, taking in to account the date of the first sighting in the database to the last one (a report from say, 1715, may be from an area where the animal -assuming it exists or existed- no longer lives). And this is what´s supposed to be the present-day range and not includes other crypto-hominids. Including other legends of wildmen and baseless suppositions on where and how the creatures (assuming they exist or existed) evolved increases dramatically the area by including Europe and tropical Asia, for example. The density of evidence also decreases dramatically.
You said I posted a link to a picture, while I have just pointed out that the Jersey Devil description I was most familiar with resembled a gray-type alien walking on all fours... Others (the oldest ones) are from chymerical flying creatures. Which one is the hoax? And do you think a story on a flying creature can be distorted, I mean, interpreted and used as reliable evidence for an ape-like creature?
Originally posted by LAL
"For centuries scientists long scoffed at the concept that a large primate could in fact exist in North America co-existing in the remote wilderness along side an estimated 325 million people in North America for nearly 250 years. The population of both the United States and Canada combined totals 19,602,028 square kilometers. New statistical studies have shown there could be well in excess of 2,000 of these creatures residing in the forests of North America.

...snip...
Wait, new statistical studies? You said the 2000 figure was a guess... Now it became a statistical study? Based on what?
Nothing of the above serves as excuse for the absence of reliable evidence. Smaller animals with much smaller populations are being constantly tracked, filmed, etc. And at areas much more remote, that are logistical nightmares.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
The usual questions:
(a) Where is the body of the wildman shot in 1925?

Originally posted by LAL
I have no idea.
Thus, its just another unreliable tale that can not be verified. Not good evidence, again.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
(b) Why the Minesota Iceman is just a freak show curiosity? Do you trust in something that has such a deep dark shadow of fraud hanging over it?
Originally posted by LAL
The original was replaced by a model. Sanderson and Heuvelmans weren't the only ones who thought the original was real. This is the most likely of Hansen's stories:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/hansen.html

I saw the photos in Argosy (1969 was a big year for this stuff). There are things difficult to reconcile with a carny construction, such as the blood that bubbled up from the eye socket and the gas bubbles in the ice from decomposition.

I just finished a lengthy debate on this on BFF. I'll point you to the thread if you want, but I don't want to have to go through it all again.
And we are supposed to belive that someone destroyed such a valuable iten? Its just another unreliable evidence with a great shadow of hoax over it.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
(c) Myth reinterpretations -actually twisting... The site now claims that satyrs were neanderthals (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cryptozoo/fabuleux/satyres.htm)... So, neanderthals had horns, goat feet and legs? Shades of mapinguari and mokelembembe here.?
Originally posted by LAL
The site is wacko, but there's some good information on it, at least where I can read it.
So, you trust in information you take from what you label as a wacko site? Why? Because it supports your beliefs?
Originally posted by Correa Neto
(d) Invoking an immaginary creature to back another one is really not a good methodology. Zero solid evidence for all these supposed hominids.
As you can see, my French is OK.
Originally posted by LAL
Good. Mine's pretty bad. At least there may have been a couple of corpses of non-human hominids and a Yeti finger that seems to have disappeared after it was smuggled out of Tibet in Gloria Stewart's lingerie case.
According to a wacko site, you forgot to add at the start of the paragraph.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, all I have to do is to claim to have seen a bigfoot and try not telling I was high or making a joke?
Originally posted by LAL
Is that any worse than the scofftics saying it could have been a hoax, therefore it was?
LAL, I´ll write once again- any biologist or paleontologist who manages to find a bigfoot skull will get instant fame. And yes, he/she will have to prove its the real Mccoy - we are talking about science, that is based on data, and not on faith, that is based on beliefs.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
How can you trust in decades-old reports, many -if not most- may as well be just urban, I mean rural, legends? Many have just been repeated by every book or article on bigfeet, no check on the orgin other than a supposed article on a newspaper...
Originally posted by LAL
Which is why I tend to stick to the ones I know about almost first hand. They weren't decades old when I first heard about them. Casts age really well. And there are always new reports, some with physical evidence, such as tracks.
Immagine a report back from the 60s. Do you consider it can be adequately traced back and tested?
Originally posted by Correa Neto
Try debunking my "theory". It´ll be an interesting exercise. It will really help you see how weak your arguments are. To defend my "theory" you will I use the same type of "arguments" you use to defend bigfoot as a real creature and as a hominid. And they are really weak.

Originally posted by LAL
Okay, I'll give it a whirl.

There should be fossils of transitional forms. There should be roadkill of transitional forms. There should be "nice" pictures of transitional forms.

Yep, those are really weak. Oops! Those areyour arguments.
Hehe. You felt in to the trap. Roadkills and nice pictures of fossil animals? Can´t you do better than this?
And forgot that the purpose was to demonstrate that using what is nowdays know of bigfoot (assuming it exists) is only about EXTERNAL anatomy. Compare the reconstructions of Smilodon with Thylacosmilus. There are not enough data to make any suppositions on bigfoot´s real link with great apes, hominids, squirrels or marupials, with tha valiable data!
Look at the pictures in
http://www.avph.hpg.ig.com.br/thylacosmilus.htm
Would you be able, only by looking at the pictures, to say Thylacosmilus is not a feline?

So, how can someone based on artistic renders of sighting reports and blurry pictures identify a creature as a giant hominid based just in the external anatomy?

Originally posted by Correa Neto
As for the gorilla´s fear smell, thit nothing compared to an opossum or even a skunk. Hmmmm.... Maybe bigfeet evolved from mustelids! No. My "theory" is correct.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LAL
[B]How about a little morphology?
Flawed argument. See the above explanation.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
And I suppose you know that nowdays digital cameras made things much easier... Even some years ago, conventional cameras such as the EOS series were great when it come to help people not loosing a snapshot.

Originally posted by LAL
Bobby Clarke's camcorder is a good example of how even "easier" can screw things up.
Suuuure. Bigfeet select the people they are going to appear to. They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...
Originally posted by Correa Neto
As for the link...
""Well," quips one attendee, referring to the potential demise of such events like the weekly Western Bigfoot Society lunches, "at least we won't have to waste our Tuesday afternoons anymore."
His wife adds, "We'll just move on to Loch Ness."
No more comments needed.
Originally posted by LAL
Roy Crowe actually seems quite sane. He spends a lot of time on this. (I met him at a Harry Schumacher Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Wa. Harry was a friend, of sorts, but he was woefully uninformed. I just saw him on Sasquatch Oddessy. He didn't even get the events that led up to the ordinance correct.) Reporters seem to have a tendency to throw in something snide, perhaps so they won't be confused with the "true believers". How do you know the attendee's wife wasn't joking?
How do you know she was not saying the truth? This was just to show the caliber of some people who are involved in the business.
Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, can you really trust in the results?
You know, since there are lots of experient professionals doing field research on existing species, there´s little need for such requests. The people currently studying (or making photographic stdies) of say, black bears or woves, have the skills needed for providing solide evidence. And they would not miss a 3-m high ape.
Originally posted by LAL
They'd have to find one first.

I'm putting my money on Richard Noll. He seems to know what he's doing.
Its your money, so its your problem. I would not put my money in any one of them. And why wouldn´t all the skilled proffessionals that work with wildlife in North America not be able to obtain a nice footage or picture from bigfoot?
Oh, and regarding your claim on how hard it wold be to even today, without CGI make a realistic monkey suit, have you seen "Congo"? Yeah, the film is a bomb. But still, no CGI was used. Oh, I know people have already wrote about it, but have you seen the hominid suits from 2001? You claim is an overstatement, at least.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Ok, we seem to be dancing around the main issue here, arguing about this and that and whether some spurious event really happened, etc. Here's the state of play as I currently see it, cutting to the chase if you will

There is no hard evidence to support Sasquatch. None.

You can argue about people supposedly finding a Yeti finger and then it being lost in strange adventures, or about how so and so claims to have seen it, or how someone thinks that there may be lots of them around, but when it boils down to it we have a few bad movies that look like guys in hair suits and some big footprints. Thats no real evidence people, nothing but opinions and easily faked stuff that doesn't convince me one tiny bit.

Learned debate about nonsense is like multiplying by zero, not worth the time and effort as it still boils down to nothing. I think I'll be leaving this debate now until someone comes up with a dead yeti. Have fun.

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?


They were out to film a documentary, remember? There was plenty of film for the encounter they had. The story I read originally said they went to find tracks to film for the documentary, many of which had been found in that area over years.

Something wrong here. Two major possibilities. Either they're fools of a high order (and how hard is it to hoax a fool of that order, I wonder?), or the missing footage shows things they did not want others to see, such as conspicuous fakery or inconsistency.

There's no missing footage. The original reel showing the animal was examined in 1967. It was not tampered with and there are several first generation copies.


I'm perfectly happy to accept G&P's integrity, but if true, it must reinforce my contention that the people who are hunting bigfoot and who are coming up with so-called evidence are blunderers. How many different ways can one screw up and still be considered useful?

They were ranchers, not scientists.

Read Krantz.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Do you know links to any of these photos? I admit I haven't seen any stills except for the Cliff Crook one that is obviously a fake.

What Clarke and Marble Mountain footage are you speaking of? The only other decent footage I recall...in which a Bigfoot type creature is clearly visible...is the Snow Walker film, which has been exposed as a hoax.

Snow Walker was exposed by Dr. Meldrum. There's the Redwoods video, also inconclusive which can be seen here:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html

I think there are stills in Green's The Apes Among Us - I haven't seen that one for awhile. I'll see what I can find online. There are some stills from Marble Mountain on the BFRO site, but remeasurement has shown the figure to be within human range. The footage can be seen on the Willow Creek Symposium 2003 DVD.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
Ok, we seem to be dancing around the main issue here, arguing about this and that and whether some spurious event really happened, etc. Here's the state of play as I currently see it, cutting to the chase if you will

There is no hard evidence to support Sasquatch. None.

You can argue about people supposedly finding a Yeti finger and then it being lost in strange adventures, or about how so and so claims to have seen it, or how someone thinks that there may be lots of them around, but when it boils down to it we have a few bad movies that look like guys in hair suits and some big footprints. Thats no real evidence people, nothing but opinions and easily faked stuff that doesn't convince me one tiny bit.

Learned debate about nonsense is like multiplying by zero, not worth the time and effort as it still boils down to nothing. I think I'll be leaving this debate now until someone comes up with a dead yeti. Have fun.

I tried twice to respond to this poster on his error riddled list and twice lost the post. I've now reinstalled my AOL and hope I won't have any more errors for awhile.

Rather than going through all that again, I'll just post this:

"Existence

Arguments against

Overview

Generally, mainstream scientists and academics "discount the existence of Bigfoot because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a prehistoric, bipedal, apelike creature of such dimensions is scant."(*) Furthermore, the issue is so muddied with dubious claims and outright hoaxes that many scientists do not give the subject serious attention.

Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community’s disinterest stems primarily from “insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible.� (Napier, 15)

Anthropologist David Daegling echoed this idea, citing a “remarkably limited amount of Sasquatch (A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn) data that are amenable to scientific scrutiny.� (Daegling, 61) He also suggests that mainstream skeptics should take a proactive position “to offer an alternative explanation. We have to explain why we see Bigfoot when there is no such animal.� (ibid 20)

While he does have some pointed criticism for mainstream science and academia, Krantz concedes that while ‘’The Scientific Establishment generally resists new ideas ... there is a good reason for it ... Quite simply put, new and innovative ideas in (A particular branch of scientific knowledge) science are almost always wrong.�(Krantz, 236)

Eyewitness Reports

A number of people report Bigfoot sightings, but it's been suggested such reports could easily be explained by hoaxes and confusion about what they really encountered. Similarly, Napier wrote that however accurate and sincere they might seem, “eyewitness reports must be treated with considerable caution ... Although we don’t always know what we see, we tend to see what we know.� (Napier, 19) He also adds that “without checking possible [ulterior] motivations, they [eyewitnesses] cannot be acceptable as primary data.�(ibid, 198)

Most of the areas where Bigfoot has been reported are near habitats of (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bears, notably including the (Powerful brownish-yellow bear of the uplands of western North America) grizzly bear. Bears are large and furry and often stand up on their hind legs, leading to speculation that Bigfoot witnesses mistook bears for something more exotic.

Bigfoot researchers claim there are many sightings that predate the worldwide interest in the subject. It’s been suggested that such stories were either not reported until afterwards, or have little to no resemblance to typical Bigfoot sightings, suggesting that people were distorting, misinterpreting, or selectively citing these accounts to support their own conclusions.
Jerome Clark argues that the “Jacko� affair , involving an 1884 (A daily or weekly publication on folded sheets; contains news and articles and advertisements) newspaper report on an apelike creature captured in British Columbia (details below), was a hoax. Citing research by John Green, who uncovered the fact that several other contemporary British Columbia newspapers regarded the alleged capture as most dubious, Clark notes that the (Click link for more info and facts about New Westminster, British Columbia) New Westminster, British Columbia, Mainland Guardian wrote, “Absurdity is written on the face of it.� (Clark, 195)

Native American and other FolktalesBigfoot researchers frequently assert that (Any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived) Native American legends have stories of Bigfoot-type creatures, arguing that these legends support Bigfoot’s actuality. Clark writes that “such beliefs are usually taken out of context and selectively cited ... Comparable monsters loom large in a number of North American Indian mythologies; they warn members of violating (A prejudice (especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands) that prohibits the use or mention of something because of its sacred nature) taboos and serve other, more complex functions within tribal societies.� (Clark, 28)

In “On the Cultural Track of Sasquatch�, Wayne Suttles offers a detailed examination of legends so cited from various Pacific northwest tribes, including tales from the (A member of a group of North American Indians speaking a Salishan language and living on the northwest coast of North America) Salish, (Click link for more info and facts about Lummi) Lummi, Samish and (Click link for more info and facts about Klallam) Klallam peoples. Suttles confirms the oft-repeated observation that none of the groups makes “real/mythical or natural/supernatural dichotomy�. (Sprague and Krantz, 43) Ultimately, however, Suttles concludes that rather than being inspired by a real creature, �It seems more likely that these beliefs have grown out of several sources and have been maintained in several ways. One of the sources may have been a real man-like animal. But I must reluctantly admit that as I have presented data and organized arguments, I have found its track getting fainter and fainter.� (ibid, 71)

In (The northernmost countries of Europe) Northern Europe there was formerly a belief in ((Scandanavian folklore) a supernatural creature (either a dwarf or a giant) that is supposed to live in caves or in the mountains) trolls, which some have suggested is similar to (Large hairy humanoid creature said to live in wilderness areas of the United States and Canada) Bigfoot legends.

Daegling suggests that Sasquatch fills a basic human need for mysteries and ((medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus) monsters: “People don’t construct (Click link for more info and facts about website) websites devoted to the bear they saw last summer, but they do for Bigfoot.� (Daegling, 21)

Alleged Physical Evidence

The remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil) fossil record provides no support for Sasquatch. There is ample fossil evidence in (A continent (the third largest) in the western hemisphere connected to South America by the Isthmus of Panama) North America of prehistoric species of (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear, (Large American feline resembling a lion) cougar, (Large northern deer with enormous flattened antlers in the male; called elk in Europe and moose in North America) moose and (Any of numerous extinct elephants widely distributed in the Pleistocene; extremely large with hairy coats and long upcurved tusks) mammoth. Yet, aside from clearly human remains, there is no evidence of a prehistoric (A primate of the family Hominidae) hominid. No one has coproliths from a Bigfoot.

Physical evidence cited as supporting the existence of Bigfoot has been ambiguous at best, or (Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage) hoaxes at worst. There have been no dead bodies, (Rigid connective tissue that makes up the skeleton of vertebrates) bones or artifacts. There have been reported samples of fur and (Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels) feces, but analyses have varied widely, and none have been ruled conclusively (or by multiple authorities) as originating from any unknown animal. All reputed Bigfoot samples studied using ((biochemistry) a long linear polymer found in the nucleus of a cell and formed from nucleotides and shaped like a double helix; associated with the transmission of genetic information) DNA testing were judged to have come from common animals.

Alleged Sasquatch footprints are often cited by researchers as important evidence, but mainstream science has been generally unimpressed, citing the possibility of hoax, among other problems.

Considering how many amateur and professional researchers have been seeking Bigfoot evidence for decades, the absence of such evidence seems to some sufficient evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

Audio and Visual EvidenceThere are (A picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material) photos and (A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement) motion pictures of allegedly genuine Bigfoots (as well as audiotapes of their supposed vocalizations), but critics note that these are often of poor quality, making analyses troublesome or even worthless.

At least one (Photographic material consisting of a base of celluloid covered with a photographic emulsion; used to make negatives or transparencies) film (the (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film) shows something that is definitely not a bear, and this film was for a long time considered the strongest evidence for Bigfoot. Wallace claimed to have been involved in hoaxing the film, and opinions remain divided as to the film's authenticity; many experts have judged it a hoax, Napier among them. See (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film for further information.

Alleged Hoaxes

Wallace claimed to have produced a substantial amount of hoaxed evidence from 1958 onward in a prank that continued beyond his expectations. Wallace's family published many of the details following his 2002 death, and critics have offered this confession as evidence against Bigfoot’s existence.

Proposed Creatures

The (A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) hypothesis that Sasquatch might be a late surviving representative of the (Click link for more info and facts about Gigantopithecus blacki) Gigantopithecus blacki is generally considered highly speculative. Rigorous studies of the existing fossilized remains seem to indicate that G. blacki is the common ancestor of two (An animal especially a mammal having four limbs specialized for walking) quadrupedal (Click link for more info and facts about genera) genera, represented by the (Fossil primates found in India) Sivapithecus and the (Large long-armed ape of Borneo and Sumatra having arboreal habits) orangutan (Pongo). Given that most scientists argue Gigatopithicus was a (An animal especially a mammal having four limbs specialized for walking) quadruped, it seems most unlikely it could be an ancestor (An animal with two feet) biped as Bigfoot is said to walk, and furthermore, it’s been argued G. blacki’s enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait.

Arguments for

Overview

As noted above, most mainstream experts find current evidence regarding Bigfoot unpersuasive. A number of prominent experts, however, have spoken out on the subject, offering sympathetic opinions. In a 2003 (Click link for more info and facts about Denver Post) Denver Post article, (English zoologist noted for her studies of chimpanzees in the wild (born in 1934)) Jane Goodall said, "People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures behaving in similar ways and uttering some strikingly similar sounds ... As far as I am concerned, the existence of (A primate of the family Hominidae) hominids of this sort is a very real probability."(*)
The same article cites several other prominent scientists who have expressed at least a guarded interest in Sasquatch reports: (Click link for more info and facts about George Schaller) George Schaller, (Click link for more info and facts about Russell Mittermeier) Russell Mittermeier, (Click link for more info and facts about Daris Swindler) Daris Swindler and Esteban Sarmiento.

Coon’s “Why the Sasquatch Must Exist� was presented by the prominent anthropologist during his life, but only published after he died. He wrote that “Even before I read (Click link for more info and facts about John Green) John Green’s book ‘Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us’, [first published in 1973] I accepted Sasquatch’s existence.� (Markotic and Krantz, p46) Coon examines the question from several angles, stating he is confident only in ruling out a (Geological feature that is a remnant of a pre-existing formation after other parts have disappeared) relict (Extinct robust human of Middle Paleolithic in Europe and western Asia) Neanderthal population as a viable candidate for Sasquatch reports.

As noted above, Napier generally argued against Bigfoot’s reality. But he also argued that some “soft evidence�--eyewitnesses, footprints, hair and droppings--is compelling enough that he advises against “dismissing its reality out of hand.� (Napier, 197)

The late (Click link for more info and facts about Grover Krantz) Grover Krantz suggested that most academics who contend Bigfoot does not exist lack even a passing familiarity with the small body of serious scholarly work on the subject, and have not examined available evidence, some of which, Krantz contended, was very persuasive. Supporters have argued this constitutes a (A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation) bias on the part of many academics who have chosen to ignore or minimize the serious efforts of many qualified experts.

Similarly, Daegling writes that “It is a fair point echoed across the board by the advocates; the scientific establishment seems to reject Bigfoot (An automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus) reflexively without so much as feigning an interest in examining the evidence.�(Daegling, 61)

Krantz and others have argued that a (An ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another) double standard is applied by many academics to Sasquatch studies: When a claim is made or evidence is presented alleging that Sasquatch is genuine, enormous scrutiny is applied to the claim or evidence, as well it should be. Yet when individuals claim to have hoaxed Bigfoot evidence, their claims are often quickly accepted, though they typically lack corroborative evidence.

In 2004, Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious (The complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions) Nature, wrote of an unexpected discovery, that "The discovery that (Click link for more info and facts about Homo floresiensis) Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as (Large hairy humanoid creature said to live in the Himalayas) yetis are founded on grains of truth ... Now, (Click link for more info and facts about cryptozoology) cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold" (*).

Eyewitness Reports

Some cryptozoologists have argued the most persuasive (Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute) circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot's existence is a high number—possibly thousands—of credible eyewitness reports from individuals who claim to have clearly seen creatures they describe as large, bipedal and apelike. See List of Notable Bigfoot Sightings or Reports.

The vast majority of Sasquatch reports are generated from areas that are low in human population densities. In addition, most reports are made near rivers, creeks or lakes, and from areas where annual rainfall exceeds twenty inches (500 mm). Researchers point out that these common factors among most sightings indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ((ecology) the status of an organism within its environment and community (affecting its survival as a species)) ecological niche, as opposed to hoaxed sightings.
Krantz noted these same points, and offered a detailed proposal for Sasquatch (The branch of biology concerned with the relations between organisms and their environment) ecology and social behaviour. (Krantz, 158-171)

As noted above, critics have suggested that people have mistaken bears for Bigfoot. Some Bigfoot witnesses, however, include experienced hunters and outdoorsmen who claim to be familiar with bears, and report the creature they saw was not a bear. Biologist John Bindernagel argues there are marked differences between bears and Sasquatch reports that make confusion unlikely: "In profile, the bear's prominent snout is markedly different from the Sasquatch flat face. In front view, the Sasquatch squarish shoulders contrast with the bear's tapered shoulders. The Sasquatch has relatively long legs that allow for a graceful stride, in contrast with the short-legged shuffles of a bear when it walks on its hind legs. A bear's ears are usually visible, while the Sasquatch apparently are hidden under long hair."(*) Krantz made similar arguments. (Krantz, 5)

Native American Accounts

As noted above, it’s been argued that Bigfoot researchers are distorting or misinterpreting (Any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived) Native American accounts in their search for early evidence supporting Bigfoot’s reality. Researchers typically argue that such folktales should not be taken literally, but rather should serve as guideposts. In folklore, such putative Sasquatch are often attributed supernatural powers, but this does not necessarily mean the tales should be discredited, as many common animals in Native American legends are attributed supernatural powers, and furthermore, Native American legends frequently make no distinction between natural and (Supernatural forces and events and beings collectively) supernatural.

Similarly, "Some Bigfoot hunters believe that the creature's earliest history can be found in ancient Native American legends, particularly in the tales of the Witiko, or (Click link for more info and facts about Wendigo) Wendigo, a giant spirit-beast from the lore of the (A member of any of the North American Indian groups speaking an Algonquian language and originally living in the subarctic regions of eastern Canada; many Algonquian tribes migrated south into the woodlands from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic coast) Algonquin tribe." (*).

A 1924 (Click link for more info and facts about Seattle Times) Seattle Times story titled “Clue to ‘ (Largest anthropoid ape; terrestrial and vegetarian; of forests of central west Africa) Gorilla Men’ found, may be lost Race of Giants“ reports on a legend of the "Seeahtik", a (Click link for more info and facts about Clallam) Clallam word for what are described as creatures “seven to eight feet tall� with “have hairy bodies like the bear�. The Seeahtik are attributed (Supernatural forces and events and beings collectively) supernatural powers, and were presumed to have recently become (Click link for more info and facts about extinct) extinct or nearly so.(*)

Native American ArtifactsThere are various Native American artifacts cited as compelling (Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute) circumstantial evidence for the actuality of Sasquatch.

Stone Heads

Pyle writes that “Certain artifacts suggest that some Amerindians were acquainted with ‘’something’’ having the visage of an (Any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all) ape.� Pyle cites “several carved stone heads from the (A North American river; rises in southwestern Canada and flows southward across Washington to form the border between Washington and Oregon before emptying into the Pacific; known for its salmon runs in the spring) Columbia River basin,� (Pyle, p146) Pyle also notes that prominent paleontologist (Click link for more info and facts about Othniel Charles Marsh) Othniel Charles Marsh wrote in 1877 that “Among the many stone carvings [from the Columbia] were a number of heads, which so strongly resemble those of apes that the likeness at once presents itself.� (ibid)

Furthermore, Pyle notes that the stone carvings are prehistoric (a conclusion supported by B. Robert Butler, who determined the heads dated from Wakemap Middle Period, 1500 BC to AD (Click link for more info and facts about 200) 200 (Halpin and Ames, 299) depicting “prognathous, chinless faces with heavy brow ridges and in at least one case a sagittal crest.� Pyle adds that such “relics do not prove that Bigfoot exists or that they [natives] had contact with apes, but they do raise some uncomfortable questions.�(Ibid, 146)

These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist (Click link for more info and facts about Roderick Sprague) Roderick Sprague in “Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch�. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered, and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads which he argues have distinctively monkey- or ape-like features. Like Pyle, Sprague notes this does not necessarily support Bigfoot’s actuality, but Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved.

Face MasksAnthropologist and ethnologist Marjorie Halpin’s paper, “The Tsimshian Monkey Masks and Sasquatch� describes two wood facemasks collected from the Niska tribe. One, obtained by Lieutenant G.T. Eammons in about 1914, and another, obtained by C.M. Barbes in 1927.

Eammons described the artifact as depicting “a mythical being found in the (The trees and other plants in a large densely wooded area) woods and called today as a (Any of various long-tailed primates (excluding the prosimians)) monkey.� (cited in Haplin and Ames, 211) Halpin reports that (Click link for more info and facts about physical anthropolgist) physical anthropolgist R.D.E. MacPhee examined the Eammes mask, and noted it had both monkey- and ape-like features, but could not match it exactly to any recognized species. (ibid, 212) Halpin details the elaborate folklore and rites related to the masks regarding a creature called “pi’kis�, which has both human and animal traits (especially connected to (Freshwater carnivorous mammal having webbed and clawed feet and dark brown fur) otters) , describing the legendary creature as occupying a “dangerously close intersection between human and animal� in native lore. (ibid, 225) As with the carved stone heads, Halpin notes these monkey-like masks alone do not prove Sasquatch is real; rather, they are curious artifacts which warrant further investigation.

Alleged Physical Evidence

Absence of

The remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil) fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence. Sasquatch is not represented in the fossil record, but neither are (Largest anthropoid ape; terrestrial and vegetarian; of forests of central west Africa) gorillas and (Intelligent somewhat arboreal ape of equatorial African forests) chimpanzees. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe note that “no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place. But even with recognized (Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet) primates, fossil finds are usually meager at best.�(Coleman and Huyhge, 162)

Regarding the lack of Bigfoot remains, Krantz suggested this alone is not a valid argument against the creature’s actuality. He noted that most animals hide before they die and are then quickly lost to (Any animal that feeds on refuse and other decaying organic matter) scavengers, writing that “I have yet to meet anyone who has found the remains of a (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear that was not killed by human activity.�(Krantz, 10)

Footprints

(A picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material) Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologist as important evidence.

Krantz writes that “the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me.� (Krantz, 36) This is a small mound of soil created “by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground� present in some alleged Sasquatch tracks (Ibid) Krantz argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Sasquatch feet can create this convincing feature.

Krantz notes that “The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual’s standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings.� (Krantz, 22) Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are “in excess of three feet� (Krantz, 21), arguing this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially.

Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints which “show distinctive (Click link for more info and facts about forensic) forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes�. (Coleman and Clark, 42) Similarly, Krantz notes that “Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet�, and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, making a hoax unlikely. (Krantz, 23)

Researcher Henry Franzoni writes that “A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not a due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations ... The (Click link for more info and facts about gaussian) gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much (Click link for more info and facts about sexual dimorphism) sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a ‘life-like’ distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.“ (*)

Similarly, in “Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes that “The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but confirm to ecogeographical rules.�(Halpin and Ames, 272)

A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show the creature's right foot was (Click link for more info and facts about crippled) crippled. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. (Scottish mathematician who invented logarithms; introduced the use of the decimal point in writing numbers (1550-1617)) John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it".(*) Krantz declares that “analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence ... that the animals were real.� (Krantz, 54)

Hand PrintsKrantz has cited as persuasive two alleged Sasquatch handprints taken from northeastern Washington in the summer of 1970. The prints were of a left hand, showing a very broad, flat palm (more than twice as broad as Krantz’ own larger-than-average hands) with stubby fingers, lacking an (Click link for more info and facts about opposable thumb) opposable thumb. Krantz writes that the prints have “many irregularities ... which cannot be identified in terms of human anatomy.�(Sprague and Krantz, 118)

Another pair of handprints were recovered in the late (The decade from 1980 to 1989) 1980s by (Click link for more info and facts about Paul Freeman) Paul Freeman and given to Krantz for analysis; for similar reasons, Krantz judged them genuine. (Krantz, 47-51)

FingerprintsKrantz has cited several Sasquatch hand and footprints containing dermal ridges ( (Biometric identification from a print made by an impression of the ridges in the skin of a finger; often used as evidence in criminal investigations) fingerprints), which are present only on humans and other primates. Krantz reports that he offered casts of these prints to "more than forty" law enforcement fingerprints specialists across Canada and the United States. Krantz describes their reactions as ranging from "'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the (A federal law enforcement agency that is the principal investigative arm of the Department of Justice) Federal Bureau of Investigation expert who said approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can’t believe it’s real.'"(Krantz, 71)
Krantz offered these same casts to physical anthropologists and primatologists. Conclusions were similarly varied, with several quickly ruling them hoaxes after only a quick examination before returning the best cast to Krantz, "as though it might be (Click link for more info and facts about contagious) contagious."(ibid) Notable was Tim White of the (A univeristy in Berkeley, California) University of California at Berkeley "found no good reason to reject them."(ibid) Opinion remains divided, however, with suggestions that the man who "discovered" the prints had confessed to other hoaxes (*).

One of the casts with visible fingerprints showed (Condensation of moisture on a cold surface) sweat pores. Krantz reports that "police expert Benny Kling ... commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quantity and quality should be making (A copy that is represented as the original) counterfeit money."(Krantz, 77) This same print showed displayisa, a common minor irregularity. Krantz writes that "The late Robert Olson was particularly impressed with this irregularity, as was Ed Palma of the (A picturesque city of southern California on San Diego Bay near the Mexican border; site of an important naval base) San Diego Police Department." (ibid)

Overall, however, Krantz was disappointed by the mixed responses regarding the dermal ridges, reinforcing his conclusion that only a (The original specimen from which the description of a new species is made) holotype would persuade professionals that Bigfoot is real.

Body CastThe so-called (Click link for more info and facts about Skookum Body Cast) Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000, and researchers argue it could be the impression of a Sasquatch. Prominent primate expert (Click link for more info and facts about Daris Swindler) Daris Swindler said that “in my opinion the impression is not made by a (Distinguished from Bovidae by the male's having solid deciduous antlers) deer, a (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear or an (Large northern deer with enormous flattened antlers in the male; called elk in Europe and moose in North America) elk nor was it made artificially. The Skookum body cast is that of an unknown (A primate of the superfamily Hominoidea) hominoid (Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet) primate.�(*)

Hair and FecesThere have been analyses of purported Sasquatch (Dense growth of hairs covering the body or parts of it (as on the human head); helps prevent heat loss) hair and (Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels) feces. Some were deemed hoaxes, and more came from common animals. A few seemed more puzzling: Coon reported that Stephen Irosen of the (Click link for more info and facts about University of Maryland) University of Maryland examined alleged Sasquatch hairs recovered from Washington state, declaring the hair “as being that of an unknown primate--and he has hair on file from most living primates of the world.�(Markotic and Krantz, 48)

In “Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin�, Anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and Ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near (Click link for more info and facts about Riggins, Idaho) Riggins, Idaho. Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at (Click link for more info and facts about California State University, Los Angeles) California State University, Los Angeles, determined that “the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and nonhumans.�(Halpin and Ames, 296)

Audio and Visual EvidenceArguments have been made that the (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film depicts a genuine creature; Krantz, for one, expressed this view, and Pyle, while not endorsing the film as authentic, writes that it “has never been convincingly debunked.�(Pyle, 208) See (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film for further information.

Analyses of purported Sasquatch vocalizations have been recorded and analyzed, leading (Click link for more info and facts about bioacoustics) bioacoustics expert Dr. Robert Benson of (Click link for more info and facts about Texas A&M University) Texas A&M University to report that some recordings "left him puzzled," and helped change his opinion "from being a raving (Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs) skeptic to being curiously receptive".(*)

Alleged HoaxesSasquatch researchers have noted a difference between suggesting that something ‘’might’’ be the result of a hoax, and stating flatly that something ‘’is’’ the result of a hoax. Many mainstream skeptics frequently declare that Sasquatch reports-especially footprints--are hoaxes, but rarely do they test or demonstrate a specific method or mechanism that would produce results consistent with initially offered evidence.

Regarding supposedly hoaxed Sasquatch footprints, primatologist John Napier acknowledges that there have been some hoaxes, but also writes that hoaxing is often an inadequate explanation: "We must be prepared to accept the existence of a (A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)) conspiracy of (A crime syndicate in the United States; organized in families; believed to have important relations to the Sicilian Mafia) Mafia-like ramifications with cells in practically every major township from (A port in western California near the Golden Gate that is one of the major industrial and transportation centers; it has one of the world's finest harbors; site of the Golden Gate Bridge) San Francisco to (A port city in southwestern British Columbia on an arm of the Pacific Ocean opposite Vancouver Island; Canada's chief Pacific port and third largest city) Vancouver. Even if we accept the (A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)) conspiracy angle there is still another hurdle to be jumped. How could footprints of such realism and functional consistency have been made? Rubber-latex molds bonded to a boot or shoe might explain how the footprints are reproduced, but the mechanical problems would be immense, particularly when it is borne in mind that the hoaxer would have to walk considerable distances over difficult terrain wearing such unwieldy contraptions. There is also the problem that footprints are found in conditions where an ordinary man is too light to make any impressions in the (The substance acted upon by an enzyme or ferment) substrate. However, it is not impossible that some of the footprints were made in this way."(*)
(Pyle characterizes Napier’s argument on this more directly: Napier “concluded that a hoax sufficient to explain the facts was even more unlikely than the animal itself.�(Pyle, 186)

Similarly, Krantz argues that hoaxing does not explain the vast majority of Bigfoot prints: “The first and most obvious problem with this is the sheer number of tracks that are known to have been found, and the number of them that can be estimated to have occurred ... the supposed fakers would have to spend the vast majority of their time driving, riding and hiking from one location to another. (This also ignores the difficulty of people putting tracks in many places without leaving evidence of their own presence.) ... the skeptics must ((logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning) postulate a well-organized team of one-thousand people, working full-time, who are spread all over North America with their greatest concentration in Pacific Northwest.� If not a small, well-organized group, Krantz estimates “something like 100,000 casual hoaxers� would be required to explain the footprints. (Krantz, 32-34)

As noted above, Ray Wallace claimed to have begun the modern Bigfoot phenomenon in 1958 by using phony foot casts to leave “Bigfoot� prints in Humbolt County, California; Wallace’s family received major press attention in 2002 when they detailed what they said were Wallace’s claims. The family's claims have been disputed, however. One writer argues, for example, that "The wooden track stompers shown to the media by the Wallace family do not match photos of the 1958 tracks they claim their father made. They are different foot shapes." (*)"

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/B/Bi/Bigfoot.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lock.gif

The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..

Lock or merely straighten? Have you seen the computer analysis? Or were you the one too busy laughing at the clip to see anything other than a man floating around in an ape suit?

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
Welcome to squatchland, Kenny. I think you've got it nicely condensed.


Erroneously, of course, but don't let that deter you. I would condense it even further.

The pro side has reached an acceptance that they probably exist based on the evidence.

The con side "knows" they can't exist, therefore they dismiss all the evidence.


As for the motion triggered cameras, etc. there's a part of this thread nearer the beginning dealing with a bizarrely unfortunate attempt to strap some cameras to trees, which mysteriously fell down, and mention of some other expert attempting a blind with plastic lensed webcams or something like that. Make of it what you will, and take your pick of criticisms or excuses for the lack of better evidence.


Did you miss the part about how long he's been monitoring that area? There's film of him finding some old, weathered tracks on a sandbar on A&E's Bigfoot. Some folks are out doing the research while others sit home and scoff. I'm watching that thread.


I have consistently maintained that after this many years of searching by this many "experts," the two most likely explanations for the paucity of evidence are that bigfoot does not exist and/or that the people hunting for it are incompetent. As you may have guessed, this opinion is emphatically not shared by LAL, who believes that bigfoot is out there and that the people searching are doing a good job, but are hampered by bad luck, poor funding and lack of support from the scientific community.

There's no paucity of evidence. There does seem to be a paucity of information getting to the public.

[LAL]

Cons

1. The one semi-decent film is gone and unable to be scrutinised

It was scrutinized in the sixties. On page 48 of Christopher Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch is a photo of a Bluff Creek footprint taken from the second roll. Seems Patterson gave about 10' of this roll to Dahinden and this was used in early documentaries. He goes on to say the rest of this roll is missing. I've read on BFF that an original roll is safe somewhere, but I'm not sure which one was being referred to.

2. No physical evidence exists besides footprints which vary widely in size and even shape.

Wrong. There's an excellent photo of the Skookum (2/3 body imprint) Cast in Murphy's book. Coyote tracks are visible, but there are clearly no elk tracks on that imprint.

Footprints of a living population should vary widely in size and shape. Ours do.

3. Evolutionary evidence is against it (no primates in N.America)

Wrong again, but no one's claiming they evolved in NA anyway.

4. Associates of the film-makers now claim to have helped fake it.

Heironimus was a neighbor, nothing more. De Atley, Roger's brother-in-law and business partner, has said he thought Roger pulled a hoax, but he didn't mind making money off it, has not given any indication of having been in on it or an explanation of how it could have been done. He believes in God, though.

5. Frankly amazing ability of 3-metre tall primates numbering several thousand to almost completely stay hidden in North America.

Keyword is "almost". If they were completely hidden, we wouldn't have thousands of credible reports and some films would we?

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Thank you for the quick education LAL, certainly food for thought in there. I'll have to install RealPlayer in order to check out the footage in the website mentioned a few posts above, and to see your good self in action too, I notice. :)

I do my utmost to keep an open mind and only go on the facts, the real evidence, and information such as you have provided helps to clear certain things up but also raises several more questions. There's no doubt pretty much every one of us here would dearly love to see Bigfoot proven to be real, but I dont want that to get in the way of my impartiality, and lord knows there's a real lack of that in todays society in general and the internet in particular.

Eyewitnesses
Last night, just after my last post where I decided that there wasn't much that would influence me further, I was called out to work at 1.30 in the morning due to a power failure at the refinery where I tend the computer network. Travelling down the twisting country backroads lined with woods in the middle of a moonless night I began to see Bigfoot lurking behind every tree, in every shadow, half expecting something to come lumbering into my headlights at any moment. Utter nonsense of course, only rabbits leapt out to dice with death, but it did make me see how many eyewitness testimonies and completely honest reports by people could be the work of a tired, overactive or primed mind. I think although there are potentially thousands of eyewitness reports, they have to be at the bottom of the heap when it comes to reliable evidence, rough pointers only to what might be really there.

Footprints
When I mentioned the diffrerent shapes and sizes of footprint I wasn't so much meaning that all Bigfoot must have the same size foot, but that some of the casts and prints displayed as Bigfoot tracks seem to have 3 massively elongated toes and others are basically very large human-like feet. I think if they're introducing a 3-toed variant then that's got to be something else entirely, perhaps a descendant of the giant 3-toed Sloths that once were common. It's certainly cant be a Bigfoot-bigfoot, and I feel it muddies the case somewhat. One amazing and undiscovered species is almost plausible, but several species seems to be stretching things a little.

Yeti/Alma/Sasquatch/Yerren
This is the aspect of the Bigfoot debate that keeps me wondering, keeps me questioning just how real these things might be. How is it that a creature so massive and human-like can be cropping up across the globe in similar climates and conditions, being spotted and described by a variety of cultures, and yet still no real evidence exists? On the one hand I need someone in the 'against' camp to explain to me how diverse peoples in lands around the globe are seeing and describing very similar creatures. Is it some cultural thing common to all people, like spirits and so forth? Is it that these habitats are all home to similar bears and so forth that are often mistaken for Bigfoot? Anyone got any ideas or theories on tap?

On the other hand I think the paucity of solid proof is made even more of a problem for the believer camp by the fact that this is not merely a phenomenon confined to one geographical area. If these creatures truly are so common and spread so far, why is there still no hard evidence? If they've been around for so long and in such a wide range surely we'd have something from somewhere by now? The burden of proof for Bigfoot has to lie with those who believe in it, since logically we cannot prove it's non-existance conclusively, yet with all the sightings, believers and researchers on the lookout we still have nothing more than plastercasts and blurry video.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LAL
They were out to film a documentary, remember? There was plenty of film for the encounter they had. The story I read originally said they went to find tracks to film for the documentary, many of which had been found in that area over years.

A documentary.. Oh yes, as in " But Roger was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary at that time and most such documentaries contain re-enactments by someone wearing a fur suit?" So, since we're giving old Roger the benefit of the doubt, and presuming for the moment that he either didn't rent the suit or left it home that day, did they film any tracks? Or did they, as you said before, film scenery? In an earlier post I think you said they ran out of film because they only had two minutes left at the time of the encounter, and this is one of the reasons they were unable to film the tracks after the encounter, and they or someone else came back to cast them on a following day. Is this now not the story? Did they NOT run out of film?


There's no missing footage.

So there is somewhere a seven minute, two-reel version of the film P&G took that day? Or is there not? If there is not, then it's missing, right?

The original reel showing the animal was examined in 1967. It was not tampered with and there are several first generation copies.

Examined by whom? Who saw both reels and all their contents? In what manner is it known from the first generation copies that the original was not spliced? Where are the originals now? In another post, you take critics to task for suggesting a rented monkey suit because a receipt cannot be found, and "Wouldn't you save such an important item, especially after all the publicity the film got?" But not to save the original film is presumably just normal for this sort of operation. If you trust the integrity of the people involved, so be it, but in that case to throw out the rest of the film was a bonehead move.



They were ranchers, not scientists.

Well, that's the understatement of the month.

Read Krantz. [/B]

If I ever see a copy around cheap or free I'll be sure to do so. But for now, I'm afraid, bigfoot is just not worth the price of admission. When a real one is really found for sure, I'll read it in the paper.

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
If I ever see a copy around cheap or free I'll be sure to do so. But for now, I'm afraid, bigfoot is just not worth the price of admission. When a real one is really found for sure, I'll read it in the paper.

Try the library. I've been able to read books by Krantz, Bindernagle, Napier, Green, Sanderson, Bryne, Hunter and even sceptics Long and Daegling without spending a cent. I'm now starting to build a collection of books and DVDs, while still using the library.

What does it cost to Google? Some of Krantz' papers are online.

If you don't choose to research this, why bother to debate?


I meant no footage of the event is missing. I didn't state that well.

It doesn't look like Patterson lost the reel:

"Patterson had loaned the “original master� copy of the film to a company called “American National Enterprises.� Patterson had previously been employed by American National to attempt to take another film of a Bigfoot or Sasquatch. This was to belong to American National. They were eventually unsuccessful at taking a second film, and American National decided to use the footage that Patterson and Gimlin had taken on October 20, 1967. They never returned the reel of film to Patterson. It was this reel of film that contained the footprints in the periphery of the frames."

http://www.monsterhunter.us/newsletter/MonsterHunter%20Newsletter%202nd%20Addition.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by Huntsman
You've never met anyone who hunts, have you?

Please back up these statements of yours. Hunting seasons are open for at least half the year, and this doesn't include any poachers that may be out (day or night). Not to mention fishermen and other outdoorsmen (hiking, camping, and other activities are very common in the PNW). And if you think hunters don't carry cameras, you're severely deluded. Every hunter I know either carries acamera, or can't afford one. How else are you going to get a shot of the 8-point buck you just shot? (or turkey, bear, whatever). And don't go far from roads? That statement alone is enough to tell me you have no clue what hunters due, and are making things up on the fly just to support your preconcieved ideas. Most hunters look for places as far away from people as possible, because, you know, that's where the most animals are (and animals that are more likely to have less fear of people).

Sorry, but this statement of yours is just pure BS. You have no evidence, no backing, and no clue. I stand by that statement.

I not only knew hunters, I ran them off my property in the Columbia Gorge. I had a truck towed on a pair when they refused to turn back. There were separate seasons for elk, grouse, deer, bow hunting......I even knew a poacher. None of them carried cameras. They were after meat. The trophy buck's head rode home on the front of the truck. And all were out in daylight, with the exception of coon hunters. They didn't get far from the roads either. Did you miss my posts about Skamania County, which encompases Mt. St. Helens but only has two traffic lights and a population of about 10,000, mostly along the river. It has, or had, until it lost its lead by one (BFRO figures) the highest number of sightings in Washington. Of course, there are some I know about that haven't made it to the database.

I'm afraid your post revealed your ignorance, not mine.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Planet of the Apes, didn't use ' suits '.. Only head pieces and hands..


Ever hear of ' 2001 A Space Odyssey '..

Check out the apes.. I heard a rumor, they weren't nominated for a costume Oscar, because it wasn't generally known that they were costumes ...

To suggest that a fake patty was some kind of technological impossibility at the time is absurd..

I saw it when it came out on the big screen. I liked Mel Brooke's send-up better. The figures were clearly people in costumes.

Why aren't you paying any attention to the proportions? The weight? Patterson evidently was good at weight estimates. He was exactly right on Krantz' 210 lbs. (The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, Moscow: University Press of Idaho, 1977, with anthropologist Roderick Sprague)

It would have taken prostheses to get the arms right. Planet of the Apes was the best "ape" costuming at the time. John Landis started a rumor Chambers was responsible for the figure in the Patterson film. Chambers not only denied it, he said he wished he'd been that good. He was working on Planet of the Apes in the same time frame, but didn't deny the rumors at first because they were "good for business".

So if the best guy in the business in 1967 couldn't do it, who could?

[LAL]

Here's the source of the rumor concerning MM, Ray. Did you not see this?

answer the question regarding the rumor right now. I was on the WV expedition.

The source of the rumor is a Mr. G, a resident of West Virginia. I won’t use his real name, but it’s not hard to discover. Mr. G was the contact for a report submitted to the BFRO. He claimed to have sasquatch activity on his property.

Prior to the start of the expedition, Mr. G’s property was visited and a handful of people extensively walked throughout the property. There was no sign of activity.

Mr. G drove quite a distance that evening to the expedition base camp and spent that evening around the campfire with the BFRO members and expedition members who were already present (still before the official start). He proceeded to share the rest of his experiences, and they were very….colorful, shall we say.

Matt decided that it would not be worth our time to expend any more energy on Mr. G (not a hard decision), and we would focus elsewhere. However, Mr. G returned a few nights later wondering why we had not returned to his property (actually his mother’s property). He had a firearm.

We humored him while Matt called the local sheriff. Mr. G shared more tall tales, and there was not one expedition participant or BFRO member present who would lend credence to any of his claims. I can easily call a half-dozen participants and members who heard every bit of it, and another half-dozen who heard parts here and there—before they got up and walked away in either disgust or fear.

Mr. G departed before law enforcement arrived. Apparently, most local residents are familiar with Mr. G. He is quite the character, but mostly harmless. However, Mr. G found out about Matt contacting the sheriff.

As payback, Mr. G attempted to spread this rumor of a BF suit. He contacted Wag TV and ESPN to try to prevent their arrival. The reporter from ESPN heard the rumor from Mr. G before arriving for the second week of the expedition. Without telling Matt, the reporter looked into it independently and discreetly. He found no substance to the claim. After Matt found out about the rumor, the reporter confessed to knowing about the claim and investigating it. His opinion of Mr. G was the same as Matt’s opinion.

I found out about the rumor a few weeks after the expedition. After learning its source, I was not concerned. Matt laughs about it. I’m sorry that William Dranginis has seen fit to continue disseminating it. It really isn’t worth investigating, but to each his own.

I could go into great detail regarding Mr. G’s claims, but see no reason to shame this man for his misplaced attempt at vengeance. I ask other BFRO members to not post any further on the subject.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Kenny 10 Bellys
Thank you for the quick education LAL, certainly food for thought in there. I'll have to install RealPlayer in order to check out the footage in the website mentioned a few posts above, and to see your good self in action too, I notice. :)


I've been filmed? Oh, you mean my posts on BFF? Or what?


I do my utmost to keep an open mind and only go on the facts, the real evidence, and information such as you have provided helps to clear certain things up but also raises several more questions. There's no doubt pretty much every one of us here would dearly love to see Bigfoot proven to be real, but I dont want that to get in the way of my impartiality, and lord knows there's a real lack of that in todays society in general and the internet in particular.


Good. Welcome back. I thought I detected some open-mindedness earlier. Too many of the posters here seem to think ridicule is the way to win a debate. I'd much rather discuss this in a rational sort of way.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Yes. It's degenerated into a debate over whether it is a deliberate hoax or an accident..

Did you read enough of the thread to notice some of the posters really did some digging?

[LAL]

Originally posted by bruto
Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?

Something wrong here.

The wrong thing is your statement they hit pay dirt right away. They were in the area for three weeks prior to the filming.

If they "blew" 3/4 of their film stock on scenery, they must not have thought they had much of a chance of filming a Sasquatch, I guess. They were trying to make a documentary.

Have you figured out how a guy who had to borrow money from his brother-in-law managed to finance a suit Disney Studios said would cost $300,000 to build? And how no one seemed to notice he was doing this, if he was "modifying" a stock item?

Did anyone see the pictures of actual Morris suits from the era I posted? Or are you just choosing to ignore those and post rave reviews of 2001 instead?

Still waiting for those names.

I'll take the opinions of anthropologists, specialists in anatomy, experts in biomechanics, primatologists and even orthopedists over costume designers any day.

[Z]

Well, I'm done debating this troll. He's not taking anyone's evidence, unless it might possibly support Bigfoot's existence. He's now demonstrated this repeatedly. There's no arguing with someone who will dismiss one set of experts who say it's a man in a suit, while accepting another set who says it's a large primate, on pretty much personal bias.

I will say I have found the issue of the intermembral index to be interesting, though I also have found it interesting that the only people to have tackled the issue are established Bigfoot supporters. I hardly regard the index as proof that it is not a man in a suit; after all, in theory, the fur-covered buttocks and breasts are enough to qualify this as not being an ape or primate. It is a weird situation - Bigfoot detractors seem to refuse to tackle the IM index, and Bigfoot supporters seem to refuse to tackle the fur-covered bits problem.

At least he's not still insisting that Bigfoot's walk was inhuman.

[LTC8K6]

Wrong. There's an excellent photo of the Skookum (2/3 body imprint) Cast in Murphy's book. Coyote tracks are visible, but there are clearly no elk tracks on that imprint.

There are definitely elk tracks in the skookum cast. This has already been documented in this thread with several links.

[LTC8K6]

Matt Moneymaker had been searching for Bigfoot for years. In the woods of eastern Ohio, he claims he finally came eye to eye with the elusive primate.

"It was 2 o'clock in the morning and the moon was a quarter full," recalled Moneymaker. "Suddenly, there he was, an eight-foot-tall creature, standing 15 feet away, growling at me. He wanted to let me know I was in the wrong place."



They just can't seem to get any good evidence at all, even though they apparently often get within hours or even within feet of live ones......

That quote is from Nat'l Geographic News October 2003.

[LTC8K6]

Some interesting tidbits about the Skookum cast and expedition from emails by Noll.

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/track.php?id=5

Why digitize the
cast:
1. Eliminates all unwanted artifacts on the cast (i.e. elk and coyote prints, dirt clods, etc.) without harming the original, i.e. a duplicate cast may lift parts of the original surface, breaking away important details.


Unwanted artifacts, indeed! That pesky elk evidence has got to go! :D

6. Yes, there were elk, deer, coyote and bear prints in the muddy area as well. When I cast, I cast the entire scene. It preserves the context in which the imprint in question was
found. This aids with any photographs as well.
There is no bear print in the body cast or it's context.


Again, it's clear that elk and coyote tracks are in the cast, since they needed to eliminate them from the digitized cast image, and that all sorts of animal tracks were in the muddy area, as one would expect.

Except for the magical 800 pound fellow who managed not to leave any of his own tracks..... :D

Not casted were two finger like groves, raking towards the main body, near the fruit that was placed in the center of the wet area. Only photographs of these were taken. They were approximately 3.5' from the left forearm impression.


Or the grooves from a hoofed animal dragging a foot as it got up..... or dragging a foot while trying to bring an apple closer...... :D

Almost forgot (but mind you, I have not made up my mind as to what I would do given the chance)...
I was carrying a 92F Baretta 9mm and a 45-70 TC. I always carry them when in the field... and one around town sometimes.

Derrick Randles was carrying a 44Mag and a 308, I believe. There were other weapons in camp, but I am strongly telling everyone right now... the BFRO has no official policy or statement concerning the usage of weapons during Sasquatch research.



Well, clearly they need have had no fear, so why not follow this live sasquatch that sat right near them only hours ago? Why suddenly abandon the chase the very next morning?

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, I'm done debating this troll. He's not taking anyone's evidence, unless it might possibly support Bigfoot's existence. He's now demonstrated this repeatedly. There's no arguing with someone who will dismiss one set of experts who say it's a man in a suit, while accepting another set who says it's a large primate, on pretty much personal bias.

I will say I have found the issue of the intermembral index to be interesting, though I also have found it interesting that the only people to have tackled the issue are established Bigfoot supporters. I hardly regard the index as proof that it is not a man in a suit; after all, in theory, the fur-covered buttocks and breasts are enough to qualify this as not being an ape or primate. It is a weird situation - Bigfoot detractors seem to refuse to tackle the IM index, and Bigfoot supporters seem to refuse to tackle the fur-covered bits problem.

At least he's not still insisting that Bigfoot's walk was inhuman.

Of course I am. No experts or anyone else that I know of have produced anything convincing in the way of argument or evidence for the "man-in-a-suit" conjecture.

I recently decided to take zaayrdragon off filter to see if the tone had improved any since he or she called me a racist. So now I'm a troll. If presenting evidence on the pro side and refusing to join the scofftics just because that seems to be the popular stance around here makes me a troll, so be it, but I'm certainly not a man.

A collegue of Krantz' who claimed the animal could not be real because of the hair on the breasts had just written a paper on hair covering human breasts (it's very light). The hair could be an adaptation for cold.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Some interesting tidbits about the Skookum cast and expedition from emails by Noll.

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/track.php?id=5

Unwanted artifacts, indeed! That pesky elk evidence has got to go! :D

Again, it's clear that elk and coyote tracks are in the cast, since they needed to eliminate them from the digitized cast image, and that all sorts of animal tracks were in the muddy area, as one would expect.
[B]
You need to see the photo. It's not digitalized. It's a photo. It's much clearer than anything I've been able to find online. There are elk and faint coyote tracks as noted, but not in the long imprint. The imprint of long hair on the forearm is quite visible. The testicle print is clear as well. This was no elk. For the first time I'm seeing what Drs. Krantz, Meldrum, Swindler and Sarmiento saw. By no stretch of the imagination is this the imprint of an elk.

There are plans to put copies on public display. Perhaps Cliff Crook will finally get a chance to see it along with the rest of the public. I would love to see him try to explain his POV.
[QUOTE]
[B]
Except for the magical 800 pound fellow who managed not to leave any of his own tracks..... :D

It left heel strikes. With dermal ridges.
[QUOTE]
Or the grooves from a hoofed animal dragging a foot as it got up..... or dragging a foot while trying to bring an apple closer...... :D


Have you ever observed elk feeding?

If, as you claim, the long imprint is of an elk's chest (which it clearly is not) there would have to be evidence of forelegs and hooves as it got up. Do you have any qualms at all about throwing out these fanciful explanations with nothing whatsoever to back them up?

The grooves were probably not cast because they were out of casting material. They sound a lot more like grooves from fingers than from hooves. Have you figured out how there could be three knee prints in a row but no marks of the foreleg or hooves? I'm anxiously awaiting your drawing of this contortionist elk.


Well, clearly they need have had no fear, so why not follow this live sasquatch that sat right near them only hours ago? Why suddenly abandon the chase the very next morning?

Because the cast was the priority. Noll devised the luring method because efforts at tracking them, and there have been many, have proved to be a waste of time. They did try luring again, but the animal was evidently no longer in the area. Noll is an experienced investigator. The rest weren't Cub Scouts.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
In my opinion the animal's habitat is within the head of the people who believe it exists...

You and Daegling. That ignores the physical evidence, doesn't it?


In the opinion of these people, sighting reports are reliable (a supposition I find nor satisfactory) evidence, thus providing means to access its geographic range. The sighting database (you posted a link hundreds of posts ago) has reports virtually from every USA continental state and a large part of Canada. So, assuming it exists, and that sightings are reliable, assumptions that I think are questionable, this area is the creature's geographic range, taking in to account the date of the first sighting in the database to the last one (a report from say, 1715, may be from an area where the animal -assuming it exists or existed- no longer lives). And this is what´s supposed to be the present-day range and not includes other crypto-hominids. Including other legends of wildmen and baseless suppositions on where and how the creatures (assuming they exist or existed) evolved increases dramatically the area by including Europe and tropical Asia, for example. The density of evidence also decreases dramatically.

I asked about habitat, not distribution. There's no evidence all these reported hominids are the same species.

You said I posted a link to a picture, while I have just pointed out that the Jersey Devil description I was most familiar with resembled a gray-type alien walking on all fours... Others (the oldest ones) are from chymerical flying creatures. Which one is the hoax? And do you think a story on a flying creature can be distorted, I mean, interpreted and used as reliable evidence for an ape-like creature?

There's a discussion of the Jersey Devil, hominid variety, in The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, pg. 134.

The Devilish thing is from folklore and a real estate hoax. The author of the article (Strasenburgh) states that south out the Pine Barrens there's a nearly unbroken system of swamps and salt marshes extending into Florida, where the Skunk Ape is found. I'm rapidly losing my impression that the East Coast is an extended New York.

Wait, new statistical studies? You said the 2000 figure was a guess... Now it became a statistical study? Based on what?
Nothing of the above serves as excuse for the absence of reliable evidence. Smaller animals with much smaller populations are being constantly tracked, filmed, etc. And at areas much more remote, that are logistical nightmares.



Kratz said he was guessing at 2000. There's an estimate based on reports of 2000-6000. I didn't say it was new.


Thus, its just another unreliable tale that can not be verified. Not good evidence, again.

They all are, to you.


And we are supposed to belive that someone destroyed such a valuable iten? Its just another unreliable evidence with a great shadow of hoax over it.

Bryne thinks it may be in a drawer in the British Museum. People examining the hand, which has since been stolen, noted it was a construction, without knowing how the construction happened.


So, you trust in information you take from what you label as a wacko site? Why? Because it supports your beliefs?


No, because it was the only place we could find some of Heuvelman's writings in French.
The site came up during a debate on the Minnesota Iceman on BFF. Since Heuvelman's book on it has not been translated into English, a poster found the site, which has a photo and article by Heuvelmans. I noted the Aquatic Ape stuff and the apparent acceptance of Heuvelmans species designation. Weird.

According to a wacko site, you forgot to add at the start of the paragraph.

You wanted a report of a "wildman" corpse. I gave you one. I've come across a couple of references to a man shooting a Sasquatch in 1970. I'm trying to find out more.


LAL, I´ll write once again- any biologist or paleontologist who manages to find a bigfoot skull will get instant fame. And yes, he/she will have to prove its the real Mccoy - we are talking about science, that is based on data, and not on faith, that is based on beliefs.

Do you know of any that are out looking? Dr. Bindernagle, possibly, but why should he count when he's already a "believer"?


Immagine a report back from the 60s. Do you consider it can be adequately traced back and tested?

Didn't I mention I was in the area after events in Skamania County in 1969? They were followed up. Krantz examined tracks in Washington as well as casts. The PGF was thoroughly studied, beginning with primatologists at Yerkes. Do you think no one looked into these happenings at the time?



Hehe. You felt in to the trap. Roadkills and nice pictures of fossil animals? Can´t you do better than this?

You haven't. What trap? I only used your arguments.


And forgot that the purpose was to demonstrate that using what is nowdays know of bigfoot (assuming it exists) is only about EXTERNAL anatomy. Compare the reconstructions of Smilodon with Thylacosmilus. There are not enough data to make any suppositions on bigfoot´s real link with great apes, hominids, squirrels or marupials, with tha valiable data!
Look at the pictures in
http://www.avph.hpg.ig.com.br/thylacosmilus.htm
Would you be able, only by looking at the pictures, to say Thylacosmilus is not a feline?


I'll take the opinion of Dr. Daris Swindler, Professor Emeritus, UW, leading primate anatomist in the country, on them being a hominid primate. If he noticed any resemblence to a squirrel or an opposum, he might have said so.

Interesting though this is, you're really too far out on a limb for me.


So, how can someone based on artistic renders of sighting reports and blurry pictures identify a creature as a giant hominid based just in the external anatomy?


Ask Swindler.

Flawed argument. See the above explanation.



Suuuure. Bigfeet select the people they are going to appear to.

No one said that. They're noctural and evidently very wary. Many of the encounters seem to have come about because they were checking out the humans. Curiousity, perhaps.


They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...


No one's saying that either.

How do you know she was not saying the truth? This was just to show the caliber of some people who are involved in the business.

So you think the wife of an attendee typifies the calibur of some people who are "in the business"? Richard Noll is more typical, IMO, of people "in the business", as though he and Crowe are making any money at this. Roy Crowe has collected a lot of stuff and goes into the field, but I don't think he's considered a serious researcher, at least compared to Krantz, Meldrum and Noll, and not according to Noll. Your attempt to stereotype people who are interested in the phenomenon is not well received.

Its your money, so its your problem. I would not put my money in any one of them. And why wouldn´t all the skilled proffessionals that work with wildlife in North America not be able to obtain a nice footage or picture from bigfoot?
You mean the ones studying wolves in daylight in the South Cascades where wolves are thought to be extinct but Sasquatch sightings seem to be the most frequent?

Noll has some intriguing pictures, but we'll have to wait to see what else he has...............


Oh, and regarding your claim on how hard it wold be to even today, without CGI make a realistic monkey suit, have you seen "Congo"? Yeah, the film is a bomb. But still, no CGI was used. Oh, I know people have already wrote about it, but have you seen the hominid suits from 2001? You claim is an overstatement, at least.

The killer apes in Congo clearly had human proportions. So did the whatever-they-weres in 2001. If they had an IM index and mass like the creature in the PGF, we'd only have to figure out where Patterson could possibly have been able to duplicate such suits with little talent and less money.

What does this have to do with 1967 when the only synthetic hair available was Dynel?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lock.gif

The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..

Out of curiousity, where did you get the stabilized version? It's hard to see the left knee in that frame, but it looks slightly bent to me. There are 12 stills in Murphy's book of the clearest frames. All except the ones where the legs are hidden by dead brush show the legs bent at the knees.

The knees are non-locking. The wobble has nothing to do with the camera. And what makes you think your opinion is worth more than that of the people, with proper credentials, who have done the actual analysis?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
There's always a possibility they exist...no skeptic would argue that. The evidence doesn't support your view, but there's a possibility...

...and Goodall only stated that they probably don't exist, but she would like them to.

Wrong again.

"In early November, 2003, Richard Noll interviewed Dr. Jane Goodall. The full interview is to be included in the DVD of the Willow Creek Bigfoot Symposium.

In the interview Dr. Goodall explains why she is convinced that bigfoot/sasquatches do exist, and the importance for science and academia to appreciate the best existing evidence and the need to obtain more. She states that a body will not be necessary to prove their existance if there is good enough photographic/video evidence."

http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp

The NPR interview has already been posted a couple of times. You're misquoting her.

(Friday, September 27, 2002, National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow)

"Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch.

Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about?

Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ...

Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here?

Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ...

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right?

Caller: Pretty much.

Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead.

Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.

Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright?

Caller: Thank you.

Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
There are definitely elk tracks in the skookum cast. This has already been documented in this thread with several links.

They are not on the imprint of the buttock and thigh, the heel strikes or the forearm print. Try your library for a copy of the book and see for yourself. The photo is so clear even you may be able to see what Meldrum, et al, are talking about. Nothing is circled.

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...



No one's saying that either. Uhhh, someone just said it.. ( pointed out the obvious ) Any evidence to the contrary ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Out of curiousity, where did you get the stabilized version? It's hard to see the left knee in that frame, but it looks slightly bent to me. There are 12 stills in Murphy's book of the clearest frames. All except the ones where the legs are hidden by dead brush show the legs bent at the knees.

And this proves what? That he picked out frames where the knee was bent ?

I have provided several links to the stabilized version.
Anyone can step through it frame by frame, and see that the load bearing leg, locks throughout the film..

Since you have the LMS DVD, you should have no problem observing this.

I agree there are some steps where ii doesn't ( lock ), but bent knees throughout, are not typical of the subject..

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Uhhh, someone just said it.. ( pointed out the obvious ) Any evidence to the contrary ?

The implication seems to be that they're purposely avoiding wildlife photographers. That really doesn't merit a response.

I don't suppose you had much chance to get to the mountains, busy as you must have been at Fort Lewis, but if you did, how many of the common animals did you see? Photograph any? How about the nocturnal ones? See any wildlife photographers?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And this proves what? That he picked out frames where the knee was bent ?

As I said, they are the clearest. The frames picked have nothing to do with a case for the compliant gait.

I have provided several links to the stabilized version.

Provide one again, please. There are new people here, and I don't want to have to plow through all those posts again trying to find it. The last two days were enough.

Anyone can step through it frame by frame, and see that the load bearing leg, locks throughout the film..

I don't see that, and neither do the experts who came to this conclusion. Maybe your fellow sceptics will. Click as I might, I can't get the clip you posted to play.

Since you have the LMS DVD, you should have no problem observing this.

I do have a problem observing it because it isn't there. It's very clear on the 50% zoom section in the extras that the knees are bent throughout the stride. When the weight is on the right leg, toward the camera, there's still a slight bend. Just before she turns, in slow motion, it looks like the right leg straightens (she may be stepping down a bit) before she puts the weight on it, but it's bent again when she does. At full speed it looks at one point where the right leg straightens for an instant, but when I viewed it again, it didn't look straight after all.

The possible rupture in the quadruceps is really clear.

I'm afraid you've failed to convince me that's a 500 lb. guy in a suit with locking knees.

I agree there are some steps where ii doesn't ( lock ), but bent knees throughout, are not typical of the subject..

Just how long is the clip? Don't you think you should see the whole film before you make a statement like that?

[LAL]

This is how the BFRO classifies reports, BTW.


BFRO Database History

The BFRO web site was built and launched in 1995. It was the first web site to provide a collection of bigfoot/sasquatch sighting reports. In fact, it was the first web site to provide a database of sighting reports of any type of elusive phenomena. The early success and popularity of the BFRO site led to a minor proliferation of other web sites applying the same formula, to UFO reports, ghost reports, etc. There were also a few web sites attempting to imitate what the BFRO pioneered with bigfoot/sasquatch sighting information. Unfortunately many of those bigfoot web sites were, and still are, filled with fabricated sighting reports, sometimes written by the webmasters themselves, in order to generate updated site content.

The BFRO site has always received more than 95% of the credible bigfoot/sasquatch sightings reported over the Internet, and it is the only collection of bigfoot reports from across North America that have actually been investigated by researchers to determine credibility. The BFRO's researchers and investigators collectively spend a great deal of time and effort sorting through and investigating sighting reports to determine which are credible enough to display to the public. The BFRO has a large network of experienced volunteer investigators across the U.S. and Canada who use various methods to determine the credibility of reports.

None of the modern reports in the BFRO's online database are made public without some kind of investigation. The nature of these investigations vary. The most complex investigations involve field searches with experienced trackers and wildlife biologists, surveillance projects, and lab analysis of forensic evidence. The less complex investigations involve phone interviews and other steps to verify the relevant information. If a witness cannot be contacted and interviewed, etc., the report is not considered credible. Credible witnesses are usually eager to have their sightings investigated, even if they don't want the information posted online.

In the absence of a serious, diligent filtering process, any collection of sighting reports submitted online will be comprised mainly of fake reports. The ratio of fake to credible reports submitted online to the BFRO is roughly 10 to 1, hence a continuous process of "separating the wheat from the chaff" is absolutely essential for a credible online database of reports.

Sighting reports sent to the BFRO are analyzed, evaluated and investigated with techniques and approaches derived from the legal profession, law enforcement, and investigative journalism. The legal profession often relies exclusively on witness testimony to determine facts. In a court of law conclusions are determined under various standards, such the "more likely than not" standard, and the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Every day in court rooms across America, legal conclusions are handed down based solely upon witness testimony, and often upon the testimony of a single witness, and often under the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In these situations the evaluation of a witness is almost entirely subjective.

The use of subjective evaluation is what separates the legal perspective of witness testimony from the scientific perspective. Witness reports are considered "anecdotal evidence" by science, mainly because they are not testable. Yet many scientists are wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always precedes and leads to the collection of scientific evidence. In the history of science, scientific evidence has never been collected or even pursued until there has been enough anecdotal or indirect evidence at hand to merit an effort to collect the testable evidence. Thus without the collection and evaluation of anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence, there would be no scientific discoveries at all. This is the intrinsic relationship between the two types of evidence. Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence, but they are what leads us to the scientific evidence. With respect to the pursuit of an unclassified species, the collecting of credible sighting reports is an essential part of the scientific process.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Classification System
Reports posted into the BFRO's online database after September 2000 are assigned a classification. The two classes of posted reports are Class A and Class B.

Class B reports are not considered less credible, or less important, than Class A reports. Class A and Class B reports are the ones deemed credible enough by the BFRO to show to the public.

The difference between Class A and Class B reports relates to the potential for misinterpretation of what was observed or heard. A witness might be very credible, but could have honestly misinterpreted something that was seen, found, or heard. Thus, for the most part, the circumstances of the incident determine the potential for misinterpretation, and therefore the classification of the report.

Class A reports involve clear sightings, in circumstances where misinterpretation or misidentification of other animals can be ruled out with greater confidence. There are few footprint cases that are very well documented. Those are considered Class A reports as well, because misidentification of common animals can be confidently ruled out, thus the potential for misinterpretation is very low.

Credible reports where nothing was seen, but distinct and characteristic sounds of sasquatches were heard, are considered Class B reports, and never Class A, even in the most compelling "sound-only" cases. They are never Class A because the lack of a visual element raises the potential for a misidentification of the sounds.

Almost all reports included in the database are first-hand reports. Occassionally a second-hand report is considered reliable enough to add to the database, but those reports are never Class A, because of the higher potential for inaccuracy when the story does not come straight from the eyewitness.

Most second-hand reports, and any third-hand reports, or stories with an untraceable sources, are considered Class C, because of the high potential for inaccuracy. Those reports are kept in BFRO archives but are not listed publicly in this database. There are exceptions for published, or locally documented incidents from before 1958 (before the word "Bigfoot" entered the American vocabulary), and sightings mentioned in non-tabloid newspapers or magazines.

Class B reports are just as important as Class A reports. For example, one of the best documented reports ever received by the BFRO is a Class B report from Trinity County California. It involved a very credible witness who backpacked into a remote area that has a history of sasquatch-related incidents. He described various occurences around his camp at night that are strongly suspected to be sasquatch-related. The report is still considered Class B though because there was no clear visual observation to confirm what was heard outside the tent.

Incidents wherein a possible sasquatch was observed at a great distance, or in poor lighting conditions, or in any other circumstance that did not afford a clear view of the subject, are considered Class B reports.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BFRO's report classification system rates the circumstantial potential for misinterpretation, not the credibility of the witness, or how interesting the report is. If you are checking the Recent Additions page periodically for new reports, or to steadily gain an better understanding of behavior and geographic range, you should pay attention to both Class A and Class B reports.

If you encounter a report that seems to have been misclassified, please feel free to let us know via our Comments form.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/classify.asp

[Z]

You see, folks? LAL has her (my apologies) head dug so far into this idea that any evidence you present, she will just hand-wave away.

The leg clearly locks - but, O no, she just doesn't see it.

I'm betting that if someone came forward tomorrow with an old Sasquatch costume that matched the PGF and that was verified by dozens of credible experts in various fields, she'd claim someone made it recently to discredit the Bigfooters. If one of Patterson's descendents were to uncover a hidden room or basement area in his old house and found all kinds of scam evidence, she'd say it were planted. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, she's going to either make an attempt to discredit it, or she'll just hand-wave it away as insignificant.

Look at the 'hairy breasts' issue. She's now referring to women with hairy chests and mentioning 'adaptations to the cold'. However, several species of monkey and ape are found in far colder climates than the PNW, and none of them have hairy breasts. The locking knee - it's pretty darned clear, but she can't (or won't) see it.

This is just how she operates, folks. She knows, beyond all doubt, that Bigfoot exists, and she's just waiting on the rest of the world to catch up. We could plow the entire PNW to the ground and she'd just swear the creatures managed to migrate into the Arctic or something.

Oh, a biologist friend of mine (well, a professor of biology at Xavier University) claims that a 'thigh rupture' of that magnitude would cause any primate to be crippled. However, she did say that if we can ignore the fact that it's backside is hirsuite, its movement is consistent with a highly muscular gluteus. She's not sure if a costume would fake that well or not. In her opinion - she's on the fence about Bigfoot - if they exist, they're some human offshoot race, and they wear primitive clothes like we would have - explaining both the rupture (a simple pouch attached to the leg) and the hairy private bits.

Name withheld upon request.

She wouldn't comment on the IM index - she thinks that would be too easy to get wrong just by studying film footage.

I'm still not convinced, though - that doesn't look like clothes, either. Or, rather, it doesn't look like clothes over monkey fur. The butt is still very disturbing, though - it's quite a shelf from the glute to the legs, isn't it?

[LAL]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You see, folks? LAL has her (my apologies) head dug so far into this idea that any evidence you present, she will just hand-wave away.

The leg clearly locks - but, O no, she just doesn't see it.



I thought you left.

You've seen the footage on the LMS DVD, then, and are qualified to comment? A momentary straightening, which I'm not even sure I see at full speed, hardly qualifies as a lock, IMO. I know of no reason the leg couldn't be straight and bear weight, but this isn't what's happening.

I've read Long, Daegling, and Dennett and zillions of posts from anononymus posters on the sceptical side. One of my best friends, who happens to be a charge nurse, thinks it looks like a guy in a suit to him, but he's never given me his reasons. At least he was honest enough to watch the DVD first. We're still friends.
A cyber friend's wife, who has a degree in anthropology, changed her mind after seeing Bob Heironimus suited up on the National Geographic show. She wasn't convinced by LMS, but the guy who claims to be the "guy in the suit" did the trick.

I still take the opinions of the experts who have done detailed scientific analyses over the opinions of ........just about anybody.

I don't dismiss anything without considering it first. Did I not just spend the better part of the last hour watching the film again and again and again while trying to cook and eat dinner and move furniture?

I'm currently building a collection of books and DVDs because I find there is much I have missed. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, anyway, and doing my homework. I think if any of you had seen any of these materials, you might have caught me in a collosal blunder: Noll finds tracks in the Featurette on Sasquatch Oddessy, not on Ancient Mysteries.

I'm not the one doing the hand-waving. I seem to see fingers extended, but that could be my imagination.

Your apology is accepted.

[LAL]

How big is it? The soft tissue irregularity is discussed here:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Here's the source of the rumor concerning MM, Ray. Did you not see this?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12115&st=0&#entry249044
(Originally posted by Judaculla, Jul 26 2005, 01:35 PM)
>>snip<<
I found out about the rumor a few weeks after the expedition. After learning its source, I was not concerned. Matt laughs about it. I’m sorry that William Dranginis has seen fit to continue disseminating it. It really isn’t worth investigating, but to each his own.[/B]

Did you not see my response/questions?

Originally posted by RayG Jul 26 2005, 08:51 PM
Jud, if you only found out about the rumor a few WEEKS after the expedition, is it safe to say you had no 'on the spot' information one way or another which would confirm or deny the accusation? How long after the expedition was the rumor started?

Even crazy people can sometimes tell the truth. Exactly who refuted the accusation a few weeks later? How could they possibly prove whether it was true or untrue if it was a few weeks after the expedition?

I hope yer not suggesting laughter is a way to prove guilt or innocence.

Personally, I find it odd that these expeditions seem to have no lack of 'encounters' or even 'sightings', yet very little in the way of evidence. Nor is any significant attempt made to collect possible further evidence. In fact, participants seem to be cautioned AGAINST any actions which might collect conclusive evidence. Not trying to start another rumor or anything, but after reading some of the threads about the actions of the BFRO (ok, Moneymaker), I would not be surprised if evidence of a monkey suit DID surface.

Update on the number of BFF members that are ex-BFRO members/curators...here's the list effective Aug 7, 2005:

Arsquatch
BFRObabe
Blackdog
damndirtyape
Fishbone35
Gee4orce
Hairy Man
Ice Dragon
JayleeD
jimf
MasterBlaster
Mountainlady
MrXray
Muktuk
Nightwing
RB
Redwolf
Silva
StacyInMi
Susan
Tsiatko
Wildman

Quite a numer of them have resigned in the last month.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by RayG
Did you not see my response/questions?

No, I missed that (too busy over here, I guess). I did see a list, however, and Noll's hope they can still get it together (in so many words).

You wouldn't be into throwing me a little support here, would you? What's your take on Wrinkle Foot?

[LAL]

From a poster who had a similar injury:

"I tore a large bundle of muscle in my right thigh in 1983 in a climbing accident. The site of the tear is approximately the same location as the "hernia" image on Patty. Over the next few years the tear healed, and with some stretching, some PT, and sensible use, the muscle functions as well as it did before the injury. Full recover took a couple years.

The only time the injury produced a limp was in the first three months immediately after accident. While the leg is solid and as strong as ever, there is from time to time pain when the injured muscle bundles don't slide properly over the adjacent muscle bundles. But this discomfort never causes a change in stride either.

For whatever it's worth."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3779&hl=rupture+\++quadruceps

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
From a poster who had a similar injury:

"I tore a large bundle of muscle in my right thigh in 1983 in a climbing accident. The site of the tear is approximately the same location as the "hernia" image on Patty. Over the next few years the tear healed, and with some stretching, some PT, and sensible use, the muscle functions as well as it did before the injury. Full recover took a couple years.

The only time the injury produced a limp was in the first three months immediately after accident. While the leg is solid and as strong as ever, there is from time to time pain when the injured muscle bundles don't slide properly over the adjacent muscle bundles. But this discomfort never causes a change in stride either.

For whatever it's worth."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3779&hl=rupture+\++quadruceps

So you're saying Patty had a really good physical therapist? This must have been in the days before HMOs, because she'd never be able to afford that these days.

[LAL]

Okay, here's the link from BFF on Woltrax' stabilized version so everybody can play. The fluid motion seems mostly to have been lost. I'm not seeing locked knees, even going frame by frame. I don't think I'd have seen locked knees before I knew what a compliant gait is.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/media/patty3.mov

Maybe it will inspire someone to view it on LMS, anyway, and check out the huge number of threads on the PGF on BigfootForums.com, including the one started by Chris Walas, ace creature maker,

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=0

And this interesting discussion on the back and right shoulder:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11549&hl=keyhole+patty

A picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Hitch
So you're saying Patty had a really good physical therapist? This must have been in the days before HMOs, because she'd never be able to afford that these days.

It occured to me it could be an old injury that wouldn't hamper her much. Interesting that such an injury can occur climbing. One of the posters noted she seems to linger a bit on the left leg. This could be the slightly compromised gait Meldrum and Nelson referrred to; it doesn't have to be a big noticable limp.

[LTC8K6]

Lu, Noll is talking about having the cast digitized. This has nothing to do with photograping it.

It appears the cast was never digitized, or we just haven't been allowed to see the results.

Not that I'd want to if evidence has been eliminated from it.

I don't think the elk imprint has to be the chest. It could be the side. The elk could have lain down after it ate.

I see no reason why there have to be footprints in the body impression if it was made by an elk. No reason at all. Even if the elk did not lay down after it ate some fruit.

The three hoofprints argument is absolutely ridiculous imo, so I have no response to it.

In any event....

Where can we see the dermal ridges in the skookum cast so that we can make an informed judgement? If I saw these dermal ridges, I would drop the "elk knee" argument immediately.

Why aren't there detailed closeup photos of the various "sasquatch" imprints available for examination?

Perhaps if we could all get a better look at this possibly fantastic piece of evidence, we could come to some sort of agreement about it? We could at least learn a little more.

All I have ever seen of closeups is a poor shot of a supposed heel & tendon.

Was the skookum cast digitized? If so, can the public see the unaltered results? If not, why not?

Did anyone even bother to properly document the various impressions in the cast with good closeup photos? If they did, why can't we see them?

Until someone does an actual comprehensive examination and documentation of the skookum cast*, it will remain pretty much useless.

*Or releases the results of the one that should already have been done by those who made it....

What is available at the BFRO is woefully inadequate for such a piece of evidence, particularly when you consider what the BFRO believes the cast to be.

[LTC8K6]

I have downloaded patty3.mov and watched it several times now.

I don't see anything different from a human walking. I see locked knees at every step.

Can anyone direct me to a clip that contains this image (frame72)? It does not appear to be in patty3.mov.

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

[LTC8K6]

Did anyone else notice the bunionettes on Ray Wallace's fake bigfeet? :D

http://www.bfro.net/images/Wallace2.jpg

http://www.bfro.net/images/CrewVsWallaceIcon2.jpg

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Correa Neto In my opinion the animal's habitat is within the head of the people who believe it exists...
Originally posted by LAL You and Daegling. That ignores the physical evidence, doesn't it?
Physical evidence? Where? Someone managed to get a bigfoot carcass, capture one alive or take a nice photo or film since I made my last post?

Originally posted by Correa Neto In the opinion of these people, sighting reports are reliable (a supposition I find nor satisfactory) evidence, thus providing means to access its geographic range. The sighting database (you posted a link hundreds of posts ago) has reports virtually from every USA continental state and a large part of Canada. So, assuming it exists, and that sightings are reliable, assumptions that I think are questionable, this area is the creature's geographic range, taking in to account the date of the first sighting in the database to the last one (a report from say, 1715, may be from an area where the animal -assuming it exists or existed- no longer lives). And this is what´s supposed to be the present-day range and not includes other crypto-hominids. Including other legends of wildmen and baseless suppositions on where and how the creatures (assuming they exist or existed) evolved increases dramatically the area by including Europe and tropical Asia, for example. The density of evidence also decreases dramatically.
Originally posted by LAL I asked about habitat, not distribution. There's no evidence all these reported hominids are the same species.
First of all there´s no evidence that none of these animals exist... Inside the heads of those who belive in them, bigfeet, basing on the avalible evidence from sighting reports (have I mentioned how "solid" they are?) these animals are supposed to live in a variety of environments. Forests, mixed forest/open fields and marshes... The forest types include temperate and subtropical. And the environments where the immaginary beasts roam are over a vast geographic area. Many sightings are near roads, camping sites, natinal parks. Some are from suburban areas. Not a single roadkill. Not a single carcass. Funny. Cripplefoot and Patty, probably the best-documented specimens have serious problems. And still, no carcass. Oh, I already can see the excuse - that´s why they are so well-documented, they could not hide as efficiently as the rest of the pack.
Originally posted by LAL There's a discussion of the Jersey Devil, hominid variety, in The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, pg. 134.

The Devilish thing is from folklore and a real estate hoax. The author of the article (Strasenburgh) states that south out the Pine Barrens there's a nearly unbroken system of swamps and salt marshes extending into Florida, where the Skunk Ape is found. I'm rapidly losing my impression that the East Coast is an extended New York.
And folklore is also composed by myths and legends, isn´t it? Distorted by some people eager to find bigfoot.
Will you claim now that East Coast also has no roads, extremely intense scavenging activity, no one wanders in the forests, the skunk ape is yet another undiscovered species...
Originally posted by Correa Neto Wait, new statistical studies? You said the 2000 figure was a guess... Now it became a statistical study? Based on what?
Nothing of the above serves as excuse for the absence of reliable evidence. Smaller animals with much smaller populations are being constantly tracked, filmed, etc. And at areas much more remote, that are logistical nightmares.
Originally posted by LAL Kratz said he was guessing at 2000. There's an estimate based on reports of 2000-6000. I didn't say it was new.
But now it became a statistical study, There´s a big difference between a "guesstimation" and a statistical study, regardless of the age.
Originally posted by Correa NetoThus, its just another unreliable tale that can not be verified. Not good evidence, again.
Originally posted by LAL They all are, to you.
Not only to me, but also to a large number of biologists.
Originally posted by Correa Neto And we are supposed to belive that someone destroyed such a valuable iten? Its just another unreliable evidence with a great shadow of hoax over it.
Originally posted by LAL Bryne thinks it may be in a drawer in the British Museum. People examining the hand, which has since been stolen, noted it was a construction, without knowing how the construction happened.
Ah. Suppositions constructed over a very solid base.
And now the hand is a reconstruction. Very reliable evidence. Smells of fraud, eh?
Originally posted by Correa Neto So, you trust in information you take from what you label as a wacko site? Why? Because it supports your beliefs?
Originally posted by LAL No, because it was the only place we could find some of Heuvelman's writings in French.
The site came up during a debate on the Minnesota Iceman on BFF. Since Heuvelman's book on it has not been translated into English, a poster found the site, which has a photo and article by Heuvelmans. I noted the Aquatic Ape stuff and the apparent acceptance of Heuvelmans species designation. Weird.
A very reliable source. Really. I sugest you to drop on using it.
Originally posted by Correa NetoAccording to a wacko site, you forgot to add at the start of the paragraph.
Originally posted by LAL You wanted a report of a "wildman" corpse. I gave you one. I've come across a couple of references to a man shooting a Sasquatch in 1970. I'm trying to find out more.
No. I (as well as a lot of other people) want a corpse. Not another report.
Originally posted by Correa NetoLAL, I´ll write once again- any biologist or paleontologist who manages to find a bigfoot skull will get instant fame. And yes, he/she will have to prove its the real Mccoy - we are talking about science, that is based on data, and not on faith, that is based on beliefs.
Originally posted by LAL Do you know of any that are out looking? Dr. Bindernagle, possibly, but why should he count when he's already a "believer"?
You know, no one really has to be looking for a bigfoot skull. Professionals do not work in the way you think they do.
Student- "Look professor, that seems to be a large ape skull..."
Biologist or Paleontologist- "Leave it aside. We´re looking for bear skulls."

Originally posted by LAL Didn't I mention I was in the area after events in Skamania County in 1969? They were followed up. Krantz examined tracks in Washington as well as casts. The PGF was thoroughly studied, beginning with primatologists at Yerkes. Do you think no one looked into these happenings at the time?

The PGF has a huge fraud shadow hanging over it. And what about all the other sighting reports? Are you sure they are not just newspaper notes collected?
Originally posted byCorrea NetoHehe. You felt in to the trap. Roadkills and nice pictures of fossil animals? Can´t you do better than this?
Originally posted by LAL You haven't. What trap? I only used your arguments.
No. You are missing major points, again.
Originally posted by LAL I'll take the opinion of Dr. Daris Swindler, Professor Emeritus, UW, leading primate anatomist in the country, on them being a hominid primate. If he noticed any resemblence to a squirrel or an opposum, he might have said so.

Interesting though this is, you're really too far out on a limb for me.
I´ll take the opinion from all the biologists and paleontologists I know and those I read books or articles from. They state that from the exterior anatomy of an animal its very hard, if not impossible, to know its affiliation. Not to mention that, in some cases, only genetic studies can help.
Originally posted by Correa Neto So, how can someone based on artistic renders of sighting reports and blurry pictures identify a creature as a giant hominid based just in the external anatomy?
Originally posted by LAL Ask Swindler.
See above. You will have to do better than that.

Originally posted by LAL No one said that. They're noctural and evidently very wary. Many of the encounters seem to have come about because they were checking out the humans. Curiousity, perhaps.
And they never check out the people with cameras, specially if they are wildlife photographers.
Originally posted by Correa Neto They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...
Originally posted by LAL No one's saying that either.
And why these people never managed to bring a nice picture or footage of a bigfoot?
Originally posted by LAL So you think the wife of an attendee typifies the calibur of some people who are "in the business"? Richard Noll is more typical, IMO, of people "in the business", as though he and Crowe are making any money at this. Roy Crowe has collected a lot of stuff and goes into the field, but I don't think he's considered a serious researcher, at least compared to Krantz, Meldrum and Noll, and not according to Noll. Your attempt to stereotype people who are interested in the phenomenon is not well received.
These folks are stereotyping themselves. I don´t need to attempt to help them on doing so.
Originally posted by Correa NetoIts your money, so its your problem. I would not put my money in any one of them. And why wouldn´t all the skilled proffessionals that work with wildlife in North America not be able to obtain a nice footage or picture from bigfoot?
Originally posted by LAL You mean the ones studying wolves in daylight in the South Cascades where wolves are thought to be extinct but Sasquatch sightings seem to be the most frequent?

Noll has some intriguing pictures, but we'll have to wait to see what else he has...............
Oh, please... You are picking just the information that suits your beliefs. Do you have an idea on how these people work in the field? Are you sure they just work in daylight? Are you sure that no one studies nocturnal animals? And why restrict the area?

Intriguing pictures... Where are they? Why they have not yet been shown if they are so intriguing? Because they are more blurry pictures of fuzzy things?
Originally posted by LAL The killer apes in Congo clearly had human proportions. So did the whatever-they-weres in 2001. If they had an IM index and mass like the creature in the PGF, we'd only have to figure out where Patterson could possibly have been able to duplicate such suits with little talent and less money.

What does this have to do with 1967 when the only synthetic hair available was Dynel?
Killer apes? Once again you are picking what fits your needs. What about the "standard gorillas"? Oh, you´ll claim the female gorilla and the silverback were animatronics. Animatronics were used just in face close-ups, distant shots used people in monkey suits.
Again, as usual, you can cherry-pck the opinion you want on PGF. As other posters here have already shown, there are opinions from specialist that it is a monkey suit. And actually it looks like one. And the creature does not fits with usual bigfeet renders. Oh, I see, sexual dimorfism, different subspecies... It only creates more problems instead solving the issues.

[Z]

LAL - seriously. Take a break for a while. You're obsessing.

As for myself, I know you'll be tickled to learn that I've decided to take an extended break from JREF. My favorite morons have, apparently, left the forum, and I'm just not that interested in cryptozoology and pseudoastronomy. Meanwhile, my best friend has bought me a copy of City of Heroes and my roommate has agreed that I can subscribe, on a purely month-by-month basis. So I'm gonna switch my obsessions for a while.

One last comment to LAL - I've got the DVD reserved at the library, and I might get it and take a look - or I might not. Frankly, the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot really doesn't have any impact on my life, any more than alien frogs or Nessie or humpback whales (GASP! SAVE THE WHALES!). Sure, it'd be a damn shame if man kills them off, but it happens, and I'm not paying for whale burgers or Bigfoot testicles or whatever, so as far as that goes, I've done my part.

Later!

[Skeptical Greg]

I meant no footage of the event is missing. I didn't state that well. Come again..


Everything is missing, except a cfew seconds of two reels of film ...

Why should we believe that we are seeing everything that is relevant ?

I certainly understand that you don't want to see anything to disturb your POV...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
As I said, they are the clearest. The frames picked have nothing to do with a case for the compliant gait.

Are you aware that Bourne observed there was nothing about the gait of the subject in the PGF that distinguished it from a human, and that Kranz agreed ?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Here's the source of the rumor concerning MM, Ray. Did you not see this?

answer the question regarding the rumor right now. I was on the WV expedition.

The source of the rumor is a Mr. G, a resident of West Virginia. I won’t use his real name, but it’s not hard to discover. Mr. G was the contact for a report submitted to the BFRO. He claimed to have sasquatch activity on his property.

Prior to the start of the expedition, Mr. G’s property was visited and a handful of people extensively walked throughout the property. There was no sign of activity.

Mr. G drove quite a distance that evening to the expedition base camp and spent that evening around the campfire with the BFRO members and expedition members who were already present (still before the official start). He proceeded to share the rest of his experiences, and they were very….colorful, shall we say.

Matt decided that it would not be worth our time to expend any more energy on Mr. G (not a hard decision), and we would focus elsewhere. However, Mr. G returned a few nights later wondering why we had not returned to his property (actually his mother’s property). He had a firearm.

We humored him while Matt called the local sheriff. Mr. G shared more tall tales, and there was not one expedition participant or BFRO member present who would lend credence to any of his claims. I can easily call a half-dozen participants and members who heard every bit of it, and another half-dozen who heard parts here and there—before they got up and walked away in either disgust or fear.

Mr. G departed before law enforcement arrived. Apparently, most local residents are familiar with Mr. G. He is quite the character, but mostly harmless. However, Mr. G found out about Matt contacting the sheriff.

As payback, Mr. G attempted to spread this rumor of a BF suit. He contacted Wag TV and ESPN to try to prevent their arrival. The reporter from ESPN heard the rumor from Mr. G before arriving for the second week of the expedition. Without telling Matt, the reporter looked into it independently and discreetly. He found no substance to the claim. After Matt found out about the rumor, the reporter confessed to knowing about the claim and investigating it. His opinion of Mr. G was the same as Matt’s opinion.

I found out about the rumor a few weeks after the expedition. After learning its source, I was not concerned. Matt laughs about it. I’m sorry that William Dranginis has seen fit to continue disseminating it. It really isn’t worth investigating, but to each his own.

I could go into great detail regarding Mr. G’s claims, but see no reason to shame this man for his misplaced attempt at vengeance. I ask other BFRO members to not post any further on the subject.

But surely you realize this seems to be Moneymaker’s modus operandi? To vehemently attack anyone who casts doubt on him and his organization…and when I say attack, I mean discredit with claims of drug use, mental instability, and so forth. I don’t know anything for sure, but Moneymaker seems like a bit of a loose cannon. He’s definitely no scientist.

The high fees, combined with Moneymaker’s unstable temperament and the BFRO’s reluctance to share “evidence� it has gathered on its trips with the Bigfoot community makes his whole organization a bit fishy.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL


Have you figured out how a guy who had to borrow money from his brother-in-law managed to finance a suit Disney Studios said would cost $300,000 to build? And how no one seemed to notice he was doing this, if he was "modifying" a stock item?


When did they say this? Who said it?

Morris said it cost $425.

Originally posted by LAL

Did anyone see the pictures of actual Morris suits from the era I posted?


Are those the only suits he made? How do you know they are from that era?

Did you see the one he recreated from circa 1967 materials for the special with Bob H.? Looked pretty good to me...

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Did anyone else notice the bunionettes on Ray Wallace's fake bigfeet? :D

http://www.bfro.net/images/Wallace2.jpg

http://www.bfro.net/images/CrewVsWallaceIcon2.jpg

The bunionettes were on the Bossburg tracks. Even Ray Wallace's family didn't claim he had anything to do with those. They claimed he faked the Crew tracks, but, as you can see, the fake feet don't match. They seem to have been copied from a photo or cast taken by Bob Titmus of the Blue Creek Mountain tracks. He has a "double ball", but not all tracks show that. How do carved feet leave prints with articulating toes? How does wood grain resemble whorls or a pattern that flows unlike humans or other known primates?

Meldrum explains the "double ball" in Meet the Sasquatch along with the supposed "short toes" of the Bluff Creek female. They're not short at all. I'll post this when I have more time.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
When did they say this? Who said it?

Morris said it cost $425.

Morris said he sent a standard suit to a Roger Patterson. Do we know it was the same Roger Patterson? It's been suggested his buddies ordered a suit as a prank. In any event, Morris has produced no evidence of this.

Disney Studios said a suit that good would cost $300,000. It would have to be part machine to get the IM index right. What about the bulk? What about the weight?

Are those the only suits he made? How do you know they are from that era?

One photo is from Long's book. He said it was from that era. Long's the guy who brought Bob Heironimus to the world (and about the only one who believed him - BH had been trying to sell his story for years). The one shown was standard. The other photo is of the high-priced model. I posted the link. Read what Dfoot had to say.

Did you see the one he recreated from circa 1967 materials for the special with Bob H.? Looked pretty good to me...

I posted it. There was a moving clip on Kal Korff's website, but the site wasn't up last time I looked. There may be one on BFF for comparison. Korff claimed Romney was the "man in the suit", but changed horses when Heironimus came along. There was a closeup of the head. Words cannot describe it.

There's no muscle movement, no tendons.......just a baggy suit. And the proportions are all wrong. BH is much fatter than he was in 1967, yet he claimed no padding was used.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL


I still take the opinions of the experts who have done detailed scientific analyses over the opinions of ........just about anybody.
[/B]

Unless said expert opinion does not agree with your preconceived notion that Bigfoot exists.

Who are you kidding?

[LTC8K6]

Jeez, a perfectly good joke about bunionettes goes right over Lu's head......

WHOOOSH!!!!

I believe you were telling the truth on that other board when you said you had lost friends over this.....

The bunionettes were on the Bossburg tracks.

Thanks for the news flash.....

You forgot to point out that Wallace's bunionettes are on the wrong side.......

Sigh......

This is depressing.

Nothing is getting through that bonnet. Nothing.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Morris said he sent a standard suit to a Roger Patterson. Do we know it was the same Roger Patterson? It's been suggested his buddies ordered a suit as a prank. In any event, Morris has produced no evidence of this.


I love how you will believe every conceivable or inconceivable scenario except the obvious one: Patterson pulled a hoax. That option does not even get considered. Ask yourself why.

And once again…why would Morris keep a paper sales receipt of a monkey suit for forty years?


Originally posted by LAL

Disney Studios said a suit that good would cost $300,000. It would have to be part machine to get the IM index right. What about the bulk? What about the weight?


Who said it? Walt Disney? Once again, why do you take as Gospel one group of make-up experts, but discount a whole slew of others simply because they don’t agree with your preconceived notions of Bigfoot?

…and enough with the IM index crap. You can’t accurately assess that from the PG film. It’s all guesses and estimates.

Originally posted by LAL

One photo is from Long's book. He said it was from that era. Long's the guy who brought Bob Heironimus to the world (and about the only one who believed him - BH had been trying to sell his story for years). The one shown was standard.

Standard what? You sure about that?

I thought Long said he coaxed the story out of Bob H? Doesn’t matter…Patterson himself wanted to make money off of it. If Bob H was involved, why wouldn’t he want money from this thing? Doesn’t mean he’s lying.

Originally posted by LAL

I posted it. There was a moving clip on Kal Korff's website, but the site wasn't up last time I looked. There may be one on BFF for comparison. Korff claimed Romney was the "man in the suit", but changed horses when Heironimus came along. There was a closeup of the head. Words cannot describe it.


Yes they can…Patty. Or are you once again going to go on and on about imaginary muscles, tendons and the IM index, when the reality of it is the blurry PG film looks like a guy in a fur diaper monkey suit?

[William Parcher]

Here's a few nice stabilized clips. You can pretty clearly see the costume material looking like such on the right leg. At the expected time the leg material bunches up on the upper thigh and even causes a crease. It momentarily pushes under the butt material. It's only superficially suggestive of a real animal, until you see the costume flaws. If the subject were more blurry or more distant these might be less noticible.


http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-10-1112222183.gif

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-10-1100753791.gif

Here's a trick little number that is not only stabilized but also creates a panorama that the figure walks across. The walk looks very human-like to me.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-10-1100494955.gif

All from the Bigfoot Forum thread: "Patty's Speed 4.5 MPH, A measure of Patty's speed" (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0)

[Skeptical Greg]

Sheesh.. Can't you tell the difference between costume material bunching up, and a rupture of the quads ?

If you zoom in a little more, you can see that Patty is grimacing with pain... ( actually the pain is because she forgot to wear her sports bra for the shoot )





:rolleyes:

[casebro]

The latest zoomed in shots of Patty show the wrinkle on the outer side of the leg. Quads are to the front, glutes are to the rear, THERE IS NO SINGLE MUSCLE ON THE OUTER SIDE OF THE LEG...Sooo, Patty has miraculously torn several muscles at the same elevation???? or is it just maybe, a wrinkle in a monkey suit?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by casebro
The latest zoomed in shots of Patty show the wrinkle on the outer side of the leg. Quads are to the front, glutes are to the rear, THERE IS NO SINGLE MUSCLE ON THE OUTER SIDE OF THE LEG...Sooo, Patty has miraculously torn several muscles at the same elevation???? or is it just maybe, a wrinkle in a monkey suit?


Don't you get it, yet?

It can't be a wrinkle in a monkey suit. It just can't.

So...let's wait for the explanation.




Not a wrinkle.

[Starrman]

I not only knew hunters, I ran them off my property in the Columbia Gorge. I had a truck towed on a pair when they refused to turn back. There were separate seasons for elk, grouse, deer, bow hunting......I even knew a poacher. None of them carried cameras. They were after meat. The trophy buck's head rode home on the front of the truck. And all were out in daylight, with the exception of coon hunters.

Why do you mention that they are out in daylight? The BigFoot in the Patterson film was walking around in broad daylight? Bigfoot as described by witness doesn't show any of the expect nocturnal physiology (that was pointed out to you earlier, but maybe you forgot).

Just about all of my friends and family hunt for meat and for sport - without exception they carry cameras when they go out.

How do you know the hunters you ran off your property did not have cameras? Did you actually ask them before running them off? Why would you ask such an unusual question - or did you not see a camera and assume they didn't have them.

[William Parcher]

That bulge is quite large at one instant. When the leg is fully foward with the foot planted it is right there. As the leg swings back with the foot off the ground it disappears. This is exactly what would be expected of a costume suit 'skin'. I suspect the costume is somewhat snug around the guy's thigh muscle mass - with a necessary looseness above it as it meets the waist/butt area.

This image shows the extreme of the bulge.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1101090525.jpg

... and the matching copyrighted mass media 'classic frame'. The bulge seems smaller in this commercially distributed still. This is the still frame you will see everywhere on the Internet.

http://www.bfro.net/LMS/images/patterson_narrow_caption.jpg

It would be interesting to learn if these are the exact same frames from the film.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


Can anyone direct me to a clip that contains this image (frame72)? It does not appear to be in patty3.mov.

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

I've been hunting around and I cannot find any available animated clip that shows this image.

Nor one that includes this image, which presumably is very near to the one you posted...

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/017.jpg

LAL, does your LMS DVD copy of the PGF show the portion of the PGF footage that includes these two stills? Can you zoom into the 2nd one enough to show that same toe definition?

[William Parcher]

The original PGF is 'missing' because modern skeptical scrutiny would eat it alive for lunch. The film is a hoax of a guy in a Bigfoot costume.

Besides what you see in the clips and images, there is a ridiculous set of circumstances surrounding the filming itself. Patterson and Gimlin contradict each other in various ways in subsequent interviews and published stories about the events of the filming. There is an unreconcilibly short length of time between the filming and when the film was processed and then viewed for the first time. In October 1967, Patterson supposidly filmed this thing on a Friday afternoon and brought the undeveloped film into town late on that night. It was said to have been flown to Seattle (from northern California) for development. Patterson and others were viewing the developed film on Sunday morning. That is only about 35 or so hours later, and it includes a round-trip flight of the film to Seattle. Bullcrap!

Patterson did not film a Bigfoot. He created a circa-1967 film scam. Bob Gimlin knows it, because he was part of it.

The whole Bigfoot following reeks of myth perpetuation. Gimlin must be overjoyed that 'experts' are declaring the costume flaws as hernias. He can still pretend that it was all the real deal, even more now than ever before because of the Internet communication situation. He might even take this hoax to his grave. He is in way too deep to turn around and claim guilt now.

Sorry that this thread has more about the PGF than the other JREF PGF thread does.

[William Parcher]

Oh, and let us not forget that the 'expert' researchers that were on the scene examining the 'evidence' after the PGF at Bluff Creek were already established Bigfoot believers. Nothing like having another myth monger evaluating mythical gobbledygook.

Zoom back. It's 1967. A professional con artist films a Bigfoot. Then a few Bigfoot believers say that it seems to be the real deal. Zoom forward. It's now 2005. There is no Bigfoot and there is no PGF film. The Bigfoot enthusiasts are very happy that the whole damn thing is still at square one.

LAL and her like will forever bask in the situation that skeptics cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. You can wait for a body to show up, or wait for concrete final proof that this gigantic hairy ape does not live in American forests. Now zoom ahead to 2067. Welcome back to square one. No Bigfoot. No proof that Bigfoot isn't real.

I think that skeptics are going to have to learn to accept that Bigfoot is an American myth that will never ever go away. LAL is only but a foot soldier in the social war of the deluded. Long after LAL is gone, Bigfoot will live on in dreams.

Bigfoot is not an animal. Bigfoot is a symptom of the human condition.

[Ceinwyn]

My favourite is the feet.

They are so flat and so white, to any observer it must be shoes. Probably sneakers.

Oh, but no! There is white sand, so the feet picked up the sand, uniformly, all over the foot. Even the arch.

That theory was brought up right here in this thread. Gotta love it.

[LTC8K6]

William, regarding the 2 "bulge" stills, I would say that the angle of the leg is slightly different in each.

So, I would say they are not exactly the same frames.

That toe definition is quite interesting in that other still. The toes seem quite short, for one thing.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Unless said expert opinion does not agree with your preconceived notion that Bigfoot exists.

Who are you kidding?

Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake. Daegling's about the only one who's bothered to write a book on the phenomenon, and he took Cliff Crook's opinion on the Skookum Cast. Neither one has ever seen it, despite the standing invitation to scientists to examine it. He also seemed to give credence to Crook's "bell-shaped object", which only existed in the eye of the beholder.

From Noll's review of the book:

"Counter-arguments to his work are going to have to address some interesting items. The author is claiming that most of the evidence is easily attributable to hoaxing of some type; he even identifies the possible people involved. But I don't think he knows that advocates of the creature's existence have tried to get more quantitative information from these individuals. I personally have contacted the Wallace family so as to come to their home and document all the evidence of their father's fake track making so we could take out stuff he may have fabricated, only to be turned away because of a movie deal. Others have asked for data surrounding Bob Herionomus such as stride length, pictures of him inside a costume and arm/leg lengths... alas, another movie or TV deal going on there as well. It seems that the admitted hoaxers only want to associate themselves and cherished work with the skeptical side. I guess it would seem that they would believe them more then people who go looking for the giant hairy monster.

I will have to take exception though, I guess because I was involved with it from the start, with him using some one identified as being dubious, possibly fabricating pictures, tracks and casts, but then using this same person to substantiate claims of misidentification with the Skookum cast and actual hoaxing with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Sometimes the tone in the book is very harsh on the researchers versus the one's who he claims have been perpetrating this hoax. He does this with Wallace, Ray Picken and Rant Mullen... all people who have claimed (in one way or another) that they have faked tracks with carved wooden feet and fooled a lot of people since 1958. To be fair though, he didn't do this with Paul Freeman.

Bigfoot researchers need to have access to these admitted hoaxers and the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available. From reading the book, I can pretty much tell that the author has only been able to view the P/G film on video (which skips frames in the process of converting the film to video, odd/even) and the 12 non-contiguous publicized cibachrome prints made by Bruce Bonney from the film. He really should have made an effort to see evidence first hand instead of watching TV programs or talking with like minded people (Dennet, Perez, Radford for example)."

Jeffery Danelek (I don't know who he is):

"As far as the book itself is concerned, I found it extremely interesting and thought-provoking, even though most of the arguments he makes have been put forth many times before. As someone who has written on the Patterson Film myself (Fate magazine, March, 2003) I was most interested in his appraisal of that footage, which is the part of the book I found most convoluted. The idea that the subject in the film has been estimated to range in height from just over six feet to almost seven-and-a-half feet (an 18" variance) remains a mystery to me, especially considering the follow-up work that was done in the weeks and months following the Patterson sighting and the availability of measurable landmarks the creature could be compared to evident in the footage and still in existence today. I could accept a few inches of variance, but a foot-and-a-half? Surely science can be a little more precise than that. Additionally, Daegling correctly maintains that the Groucho Marx/Bigfoot walk could be mimicked by a human, but he fails to answer the question of why a guy in a suit would do such a thing. It's a clearly difficult and unnatural movement to attempt, so why would an alleged prankster feel compelled to try it? Most of the objections he makes, however, were sound, and he did a good job of challenging the late Grover Krantz in terms of his scientific methodology and assumptions. I would have loved to have seen a debate between these two. It surely would have been worth the price of admission!"

T.R. (I think this one is from a respected researcher who posts on BFF - I'll have to check the thread):

"The problem is that Daegling denounces all of the available evidence as fabricated, tainted, or worthless. Some of the scrutiny of evidence is done with fairness and thoroughness, such as when addressing the case of the Minnesota Iceman and pre-1958 historical accounts. However, very few contemporary advocates would elevate those tales to a "greatest hits" list in terms of evidence, if they are considered genuine at all. In all likelihood, the pre-1958 accounts are brought forth by Daegling to examine their mythological elements as they compare to current accounts. The story of the Iceman just serves to illustrate the duping of two advocate scientists. Therein is the value of the tales, at least to the author.

Evidence that is considered more seriously by current researchers is unfortunately assessed with assumption, misinformation, and derision. The portions regarding the Skookum cast, Ray Wallace, and eyewitness testimony are particularly misleading and omit some important details that are none too difficult to unearth. An informed advocate response to the chapters regarding evidence is essential. Special focus should be given to answering charges against the evidentiary value of the Patterson film and track casts.

Daegling's dismissal of Jimmy Chilcutt's dermal ridge findings as "irrelevant" is simply astounding. If a feature can be observed in a track cast that would support is authenticity, then it can be duplicated convincingly with a modest amount of human ingenuity and a prankster's inclination. No special knowledge is required. Any other position is considered to be hubris flowing from misplaced confidence in one's professional credentials and specialist training. The advocates are told they are underestimating the ability of hoaxers and overestimating the difficulty of hoaxing."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0759105391/102-9293852-6335331?v=glance


Yes, I've read the book and every article and interview with Daegling I could find.

I can't remember a time when I had any "pre-conceived notions". I'd never heard of it until I bought Green's earliest books (big booklets, really) en route to the Northwest. The following spring there were events in Skamania County, where we owned 160 forested acres, and I met some of the people involved. I think my reaction was mostly "Hm". I don't recall ever worrying one might eat the kids.

There were many years where I paid no attention at all, especially when out of the area again, and only after the Wallace story broke was my interest revived. I found a great deal of information on the Internet and, more recently still, I've been in communication with a few people who actually research this stuff. I'm in an area now that's near mountains where there've been a few sightings, but you won't find me out at night with an infra red camera.

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Oh, and let us not forget that the 'expert' researchers that were on the scene examining the 'evidence' after the PGF at Bluff Creek were already established Bigfoot believers. Nothing like having another myth monger evaluating mythical gobbledygook.


Patterson expected scientists to swoop down on Bluff Creek. That didn't happen. He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic. Does that sound like the action of a hoaxer? Dahinden took the film to Russia at his own expense to have it examined by experts in biomechanics.
They also pronounced it authentic. Napier's "problems" with the film have been answered (they had to do with the stride as I recall).

Maybe you should do a little research on this before you make any more baseless assumptions.

[Dredred]

Originally posted by LAL
Maybe you should do a little research on this before you make any more baseless assumptions.

Maybe so should you. Remember telling me you don't think dermal ridges and scars in footprints can be faked (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870964132)? Watch National Geographic Channel's documentary: Bigfoot, is it real? and see a guy showing how he did it.

[LTC8K6]

He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic.

Which primatologists?

I am at a real loss here.

How could primatologists possibly pronounce such a film authentic?

The very idea that they would make such a pronouncement really bothers me.

An authentic what? What's authentic about it?

Without an actual sasquatch to compare with, I am mystified as to what could be pronounced authentic about the P/G film by primatologists.

If we have a possible film of a bengal tiger strolling through a back yard in Paducah, we can ask experts on tigers if it is indeed a genuine film of a bengal tiger strolling through someone's back yard. The experts can then certainly say it's an authentic film of a bengal tiger.

I don't see how this can be done with the P/G film.

It's authentically a 16mm film shot in Bluff Creek around 1967, I guess.

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
The original PGF is 'missing' because modern skeptical scrutiny would eat it alive for lunch. The film is a hoax of a guy in a Bigfoot costume.

Besides what you see in the clips and images, there is a ridiculous set of circumstances surrounding the filming itself. Patterson and Gimlin contradict each other in various ways in subsequent interviews and published stories about the events of the filming. There is an unreconcilibly short length of time between the filming and when the film was processed and then viewed for the first time. In October 1967, Patterson supposidly filmed this thing on a Friday afternoon and brought the undeveloped film into town late on that night. It was said to have been flown to Seattle (from northern California) for development. Patterson and others were viewing the developed film on Sunday morning. That is only about 35 or so hours later, and it includes a round-trip flight of the film to Seattle. Bullcrap!

Patterson did not film a Bigfoot. He created a circa-1967 film scam. Bob Gimlin knows it, because he was part of it.

The whole Bigfoot following reeks of myth perpetuation. Gimlin must be overjoyed that 'experts' are declaring the costume flaws as hernias. He can still pretend that it was all the real deal, even more now than ever before because of the Internet communication situation. He might even take this hoax to his grave. He is in way too deep to turn around and claim guilt now.

Sorry that this thread has more about the PGF than the other JREF PGF thread does.

From all reports, Gimlin is too nice a guy to sue people for slander and/or libel, but I wish he would. And I hope you have a lot of money.

De Atley said he thought he would have chartered a plane and knew how long the flight was (9hrs.). Gimlin remembered going to the airport and the place that processed it may have been identified. DeAtley had some memory lapses about the events in his interview with Long.

The contradictions were over things like whether Roger's horse fell on him. If the two agreed on every detail, that would be suspicious. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous experiment where an unexpected event is staged for college students and all agree on practically nothing.

I'm not so sure the original is missing. Most of the second reel was never returned, but the reel with the animal may be "someplace safe". I doubt examination of the original today would show tampering any more than the first examinations did. The original was shown so much it was getting damaged.

Why wouldn't Gimlin take his story to the grave? Patterson did. Could be because it's the truth.

[LTC8K6]

Dr. Osman Hill, Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, confirmed that the creature in the film must be hominid- manlike- rather than pongid - apelike. He went on to say that this opinion does not eliminate the chance of a masquerade, but added that if such was the case, it was extremely well done.

I guess that is supposed to be an example of saying the P/G film is authentic. :D

The doctor actually says it looks like a man, he can't rule out a hoax, and if it was a hoax, it was a good one.

Nearly exactly what I would say.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the film as authentic.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are you aware that Bourne observed there was nothing about the gait of the subject in the PGF that distinguished it from a human, and that Kranz agreed ?

Krantz agreed the compliant gait can be achieved by a human (a la Groucho Marx) but noted it would be difficult to maintain for any length of time. Further research has revealed some peculiarities that show the gait is decidedly not human..

[LTC8K6]

The fourth analysis of the film was made by Geoffrey Bourne, Director, Yerkes Regional Primate Center, Emory University, Atlanta. As a portion of the hour long "MONSTERS! Mysteries or Myths?" (..directed by Robert Guenette) produced by Wolper Productions in association with the Smithsonian Institution, it was broadcast on network television the evening of November 25, 1974, and reportedly viewed by 30,000,000 North Americans. Bourne informed me by telephone that he had viewed the Patterson-Gimlin film several years earlier. He said the request by Wolper that he analyze the film, his second viewing of it, and the recording of his conclusions all took place in the space of a few days. The following is a transcript of his statement as provided by the Smithsonian Institution:

Well, you know, that looks to me very much like a human walk. Its gait is very much of a human type gait and also when you look at its feet as it walks, the under surface is much too light-colored for an animal with this kind of dark fur. And furthermore, it seems to have the characteristics of both male and female---the head has a big crest on it like a male gorilla does--and this crest is called a sagittal crest. Now, this creature also has pendulous breasts which is a female characteristic and the breasts are covered with fur and in all other primates the breasts are actually either bare or very sparsely haired. So for these reasons alone, I would have very grave doubts about the authenticity of this particular animal.



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/strasenburgh.htm

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I guess that is supposed to be an example of saying the P/G film is authentic. :D

The doctor actually says it looks like a man, he can't rule out a hoax, and if it was a hoax, it was a good one.

Nearly exactly what I would say.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the film as authentic.

The language of science is cautious.

[LTC8K6]

The language of science is cautious.

Was the P/G film authenticated by Yerkes primatologists, or is this just another lie that is uncovered when digging into the bigfoot story?

As far as I can tell, it has to be a lie because it is not possible for any primatologist to authenticate the P/G film.

Now I am even beginning to think that Chilcutt is entirely mistaken about seeing dermal ridges on any bigfoot cast.

After a lot of looking, I no longer think there are any dermal ridges on any bigfoot casts, and Chilcutt is seeing what he needs to see.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake. Daegling's about the only one who's bothered to write a book on the phenomenon, and he took Cliff Crook's opinion on the Skookum Cast.


Napier, Grieve, Daegling and Schmitt are all qualified scientists who have problems with the film after their detailed analysis. They believe it’s a fake. That’s as close as it gets. You cannot “show� it’s a fake even if Patterson’s widow produces a costume and Roger’s detailed diary of how he did it…some Bigfoot believers will still insist it’s real. How do you argue reason with that?

Anyway, you know the drill. Bigfoot is an extraordinary claim, and as such the burden of proof is on the claimant. Until sufficient evidence of a Bigfoot is produced, most will remain doubtful…regardless of a bad film from 1967.

Originally posted by LAL
Bigfoot researchers need to have access to these admitted hoaxers and the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available. From reading the book, I can pretty much tell that the author has only been able to view the P/G film on video (which skips frames in the process of converting the film to video, odd/even…blah, blah, bleh…


Best evidence available? Would that be blurry video, footprints, and the cast of a butt? Yeah…we better get busy and add Homo Sasquatchus into the scientific catalog. I mean…it’s not as if we actually have to see a live animal to be convinced of it’s existence.

Originally posted by LAL
Daegling's dismissal of Jimmy Chilcutt's dermal ridge findings as "irrelevant" is simply astounding.


Why? What did he say about it?

Originally posted by LAL
Additionally, Daegling correctly maintains that the Groucho Marx/Bigfoot walk could be mimicked by a human, but he fails to answer the question of why a guy in a suit would do such a thing. It's a clearly difficult and unnatural movement to attempt, so why would an alleged prankster feel compelled to try it?


Uhhh…to fool you into thinking he’s a big monkey? You know, the way actors in gorilla suits walk kinda funny?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


Is this the source? It's customary to post it so people can read the rest.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/strasenburgh.htm

Re sagittal crests:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/daruc/ycranium.htm

It's been noted the sagittal crest seems to be a factor of size, and the Sasquatch is the only primate where the females get that big.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Which primatologists?

I am at a real loss here.

How could primatologists possibly pronounce such a film authentic?

The very idea that they would make such a pronouncement really bothers me.

An authentic what? What's authentic about it?

Without an actual sasquatch to compare with, I am mystified as to what could be pronounced authentic about the P/G film by primatologists.

If we have a possible film of a bengal tiger strolling through a back yard in Paducah, we can ask experts on tigers if it is indeed a genuine film of a bengal tiger strolling through someone's back yard. The experts can then certainly say it's an authentic film of a bengal tiger.

I don't see how this can be done with the P/G film.

It's authentically a 16mm film shot in Bluff Creek around 1967, I guess.

I guess it's also an authentic primate. As are we.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL

The contradictions were over things like whether Roger's horse fell on him. If the two agreed on every detail, that would be suspicious. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous experiment where an unexpected event is staged for college students and all agree on practically nothing.


Yet, if Bob H. has any minor inconsistencies in his story like the length of the drive to Bluff Creek, he’s lying!

I’m glad you’re consistent.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Krantz agreed the compliant gait can be achieved by a human (a la Groucho Marx) but noted it would be difficult to maintain for any length of time.

How about sixty seconds?


Originally posted by LAL
Further research has revealed some peculiarities that show the gait is decidedly not human..

What research? By whom?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Was the P/G film authenticated by Yerkes primatologists, or is this just another lie that is uncovered when digging into the bigfoot story?


This is a huge problem with Bigfoot research, and Bigfoot websites in general. If they want to do honest research, then let them. Go to town. But keep it honest. Distorting the truth does nothing to further true scientific research.

The BFRO website is particularly guilty of this, and I suspect this is in large part a way to keep Moneymaker’s Bigfoot rodeo round-ups in full lucrative swing. Another problem is…I notice a good deal of dubious website content, like BFRO’s, is simply cut and pasted from one Bigfoot site to another without any fact checking whatsoever.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Napier, Grieve, Daegling and Schmitt are all qualified scientists who have problems with the film after their detailed analysis. They believe it’s a fake. That’s as close as it gets. You cannot “show� it’s a fake even if Patterson’s widow produces a costume and Roger’s detailed diary of how he did it…some Bigfoot believers will still insist it’s real. How do you argue reason with that?

I don't know anyone who reasons that way, so I can't comment. You'd think if Mrs. Patterson had such a suit she'd have jumped on the moneymaking bandwagon with Heironimus and the Wallace clan. The film was tied up in copyright problems for years; she'd have probably made more money with a suit. But in 38 years no such suit has surfaced, let alone a diary.

This is what Grieve said in his conclusion:

"My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch 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. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man.

D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D.
Reader in Biomechanics
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine
London"


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/grieve.html


I'd have to read Napier again on the film, but he was convinced the creatures exist. His "problems" had to do with the stride. Daegling and Schmitt make much of possible mismeasurement, but this doesn't prove a hoax. I've already posted Noll on that.

>snip<


Why? What did he say about it?

He implied the dermal ridges could have been faked and that the similarities could be accounted for by hoaxers communicating by long distance phone. That was one of the places I had to put the book down.

There's a very detailed review by Judaculla on BFF. I'll post the link in another reply. Sometimes when I bring up that site I loose my whole post.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I have downloaded patty3.mov and watched it several times now.

I don't see anything different from a human walking. I see locked knees at every step.

Can anyone direct me to a clip that contains this image (frame72)? It does not appear to be in patty3.mov.

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

Why don't you try the library for LMS instead of relying on clips?

The knee looks bent on frame 72 as well.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake.

Name me a scientist who has access to the original film in order to give such analysis.


From Noll's review of the book:

"Counter-arguments to his work are going to have to address some interesting items. The author is claiming that most of the evidence is easily attributable to hoaxing of some type; he even identifies the possible people involved. But I don't think he knows that advocates of the creature's existence have tried to get more quantitative information from these individuals. I personally have contacted the Wallace family so as to come to their home and document all the evidence of their father's fake track making so we could take out stuff he may have fabricated, only to be turned away because of a movie deal. Others have asked for data surrounding Bob Herionomus such as stride length, pictures of him inside a costume and arm/leg lengths... alas, another movie or TV deal going on there as well. It seems that the admitted hoaxers only want to associate themselves and cherished work with the skeptical side. I guess it would seem that they would believe them more then people who go looking for the giant hairy monster.

Without direct access to the primary evidence the skeptics cannot build a stronger case. The PGF is missing, so nobody can discover if it had been spliced by Patterson. Nor can they examine what would be the most detailed images (moving and still) coming from the Kodak film itself that ran through Patterson's camera. We can't know if there was more than one take during the hoax filming. Maybe the guy tripped on a stick or had a few moves that looked too fakey. Patterson could easily splice the film so that it only showed the best parts. Without the film itself (and this would include the entire roll) nobody can learn if it had been manipulated.

Why does Noll make these statements when he himself is said to refuse to allow Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer - CSICOP) to examine the Skookum Cast?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Come again..


Everything is missing, except a cfew seconds of two reels of film ...

Why should we believe that we are seeing everything that is relevant ?

I certainly understand that you don't want to see anything to disturb your POV...

Same to you, fella.

The part of the second roll wasn't returned but not before it was shown, but all it was was scenery. If you were expecting to find Bob Heironimus disrobing, you would have been sadly disappointed.

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Name me a scientist who has access to the original film in order to give such analysis.

Without direct access to the primary evidence the skeptics cannot build a stronger case. The PGF is missing, so nobody can discover if it had been spliced by Patterson. Nor can they examine what would be the most detailed images (moving and still) coming from the Kodak film itself that ran through Patterson's camera. We can't know if there was more than one take during the hoax filming. Maybe the guy tripped on a stick or had a few moves that looked too fakey. Patterson could easily splice the film so that it only showed the best parts. Without the film itself (and this would include the entire roll) nobody can learn if it had been manipulated.

Why does Noll make these statements when he himself is said to refuse to allow Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer - CSICOP) to examine the Skookum Cast?

This is discussed on BFF. How about you guys do your own Googling for awhile? I have other things to look up. Radford can see it with the rest of the public.

The film was examined at the time and found not to be tampered with. I can't give you names without doing a lot of reading in books I don't have (unless I can find something on the Internet), but I believe Green documented a lot of that.

There were two rolls.

[LTC8K6]

Lu, I really just want to know if those stills appear in any clips anywhere, including LMS. Mainly for the bottom of the feet. I want to know before I bother to look at LMS.

A locked knee is still what I see, but why should I bother with LMS if I am not going to see any more of the film?

[LTC8K6]

This is discussed on BFF.

Is that supposed to be an authoritative source?

Here is where the Dr. Hill quote is from, btw.

National Wildlife, April May Issue 1968 Volume 6 Number 3

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

So far, I can find no one from Yerkes authenticating anything related to bigfoot, thank goodness.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Jeez, a perfectly good joke about bunionettes goes right over Lu's head......

WHOOOSH!!!!

I believe you were telling the truth on that other board when you said you had lost friends over this.....



Thanks for the news flash.....

You forgot to point out that Wallace's bunionettes are on the wrong side.......

Sigh......

This is depressing.

Nothing is getting through that bonnet. Nothing.

Since the tone of the post seemed to be right in line with your posts on fake feet and elk prints, I assumed you don't know the difference between a bunion and a bunionette. I didn't want to humiliate you by pointing that out, however...........

http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/tp10782.asp

A bunion is a bony prominence at the base of the big toe, so obviously what you referred to as bunionettes would be bunions, and as, bunions wouldn't be on the wrong side at all.

I apologize for missing your joke, but I've already told you what I think of your sense of humor, even though I did misspell "sophomoric"

[LTC8K6]

Is this the source? It's customary to post it so people can read the rest.

I grovel before you oh great Lu and beseech you to restrain your wrath before my horrible error of forgetting to include links.

Oh wait, you make mistakes too, Lu......

Whew! For a minute there I thought I was in trouble.

[LTC8K6]

A bunion is a bony prominence at the base of the big toe, so obviously what you referred to as bunionettes would be bunions, and as, bunions wouldn't be on the wrong side at all.

They are clearly on the wrong side, as anyone can see.

I also put a smiley, so that no one would take it seriously.

Oh well......

Still not filtering through that bonnet.

That's a Foghorn Leghorn reference, btw....... :D

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Yet, if Bob H. has any minor inconsistencies in his story like the length of the drive to Bluff Creek, he’s lying!

I’m glad you’re consistent.

That's the least of it. If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

"Much of the book is a transcript of what people had to say about Roger Patterson, mostly, but by no means entirely, unfavorable things, and Long makes clear that he thought that would have been enough to disprove the film even if he had never interviewed the man who claimed to have worn the suit or the man who claimed to have made it.

He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows. .

Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that.

And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits--a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth. Philip Morris' story was apparently a
last-minute addition after the book was finished. It would have been to Long's credit that he chose to add material so damaging to the case he was trying to make, except that he apparently thought he was making the case stronger.

Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm

[LTC8K6]

If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

If only you could show that the P/G film shows such an animal, you'd have a point.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Is that supposed to be an authoritative source?

Noll posts there. He might be considered an authority on why he doesn't want to give Radford access until the Skookum Cast goes on display.


Here is where the Dr. Hill quote is from, btw.

National Wildlife, April May Issue 1968 Volume 6 Number 3

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

So far, I can find no one from Yerkes authenticating anything related to bigfoot, thank goodness.

Thank goodness?

These too.

"What do the experts think?

In the Argosy article, the editors interviewed three well-known scientists on that subject:

Dr. John R. Napier, Director of the Primate Biology Program of the Smithsonian Institution, said that he saw nothing in the film that, on scientific grounds, would point conclusively to a hoax. He expressed some reservations about the exaggerated fluidity of movement of the creature in Patterson's film, and suggested that despite the apparent breasts, he would tend to think the creature a male because of the crest on its head, which occurs only in male primates.

Dr. Joseph Wraight, Chief Geographer for the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, confirmed that a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska has existed several times in the past million years, and at those times, the climate in the bridge area was relatively mild. A migration from Asia, then, would have been logically possible.

Dr. Osman Hill, Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, confirmed that the creature in the film must be hominid- manlike- rather than pongid - apelike. He went on to say that this opinion does not eliminate the chance of a masquerade, but added that if such was the case, it was extremely well done. Dr. Hill expressed the thoughts of dozens of hopeful men as well: Whatever was shown in the film, it should stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the area, to seek really concrete evidence one way or the other:

Thanks for the article. See how informative it is to post things in context and give the link?

[LTC8K6]

Lu, I was refuting the claim that Yerkes primatologists had authenticated the P/G film.

It was entirely appropriate to quote only those from Yerkes.

You are a really strange person, Lu.

Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I grovel before you oh great Lu and beseech you to restrain your wrath before my horrible error of forgetting to include links.

Oh wait, you make mistakes too, Lu......

Whew! For a minute there I thought I was in trouble.

<Resists impuse to plant foot in a place that the grovelling position makes extremely accessible.............>

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Same to you, fella.

The part of the second roll wasn't returned but not before it was shown, but all it was was scenery. If you were expecting to find Bob Heironimus disrobing, you would have been sadly disappointed. Sorry Lu, but I can't take your word for it..

De Atley said he thought he would have chartered a plane and knew how long the flight was (9hrs.). Ought to be pretty easy to verify if a plane was chartered..



Still tring to account for the greater part of two rolls of film.. Even if it's mostly scenery, shouldn't hurt the case, should it?

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, I was refuting the claim that Yerkes primatologists had authenticated the P/G film.

It was entirely appropriate to quote only those from Yerkes.

You are a really strange person, Lu.

Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film?

Yeah, as soon as I can remember where I read that.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


Care to back up the claim that Yerkes primatologists authenticated the P/G film? Oh, come on .. It was an authentic film...:D

[LTC8K6]

Let me refresh your memory, Lu.

I know how you hate to go back and read.

You made this claim just one page ago:

He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic. Does that sound like the action of a hoaxer?

To refute that, I then listed two Yerkes primatologists who had seen the film shortly after it was made who did not authenticate the film.

I forgot to include links, but I corrected that error.

You then chastised me for not including quotes from people who were not from Yerkes.

I then said I did not need to include quotes from those folks, since they were not relevant to my point.

So I ask again.

Would you care to back up your claim?

He and De Atley took the film to Yerkes where primatologists pronounced it authentic. Does that sound like the action of a hoaxer?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sorry Lu, but I can't take your word for it..

Ought to be pretty easy to verify if a plane was chartered..


Funny Long didn't do that. He's my source on what DeAtley said. You know, the Long who wrote the book on Heironimus?

Still tring to account for the greater part of two rolls of film.. Even if it's mostly scenery, shouldn't hurt the case, should it?

Did you miss my post on what happened to it?

[William Parcher]

Lu, you forgot to mention that National Geographic, Bronx Zoo and Life Magazine all rejected the PGF after viewing the evidence (which would have been a viewing of whatever portion of the film Patterson presented and enlarged printed still images).

The National Geographic Society completely dismissed the evidence.

Life Magazine assembled a group of scientists to view the film evidence at the American Museum of Natural History. The scientists viewed the film only once, made no measurements and did not ask for any stop-framing. Patterson, Gimlin and De Atley were asked to wait outside after the viewing. Within fifteen minutes the scientist announced that the film was "not kosher." With this news, the magazine people started to lose interest in the project.

The people at the Bronx Zoo were somewhat more open-minded. They requested at least two replays and asked for several stop-frames. Their final opinion, however, was negative. They reported that there was "something wrong" with the film. They did not substantiate their opinion with any additional information. With two rejections, as it were, Life Magazine lost interest and did not enter into a contract with Patterson and his associates.

This information comes from Chris Murphy's The History of the Patterson-Gimlin Film (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm). This is a seemingly good source for the events concerning the attempted marketing of the film after the event.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Let me refresh your memory, Lu.

I know how you hate to go back and read.


It took one of the researchers on BFF hours to read this thread. If you'll note, I have gone back and answered posts from days before. BFF has a feature where you can search all the posts of any member, but I don't see anything like that on this board. I'm spending hours a day at this as it is.


You made this claim just one page ago:

To refute that, I then listed two Yerkes primatologists who had seen the film shortly after it was made who did [b]not authenticate the film.

Did you read what they said? We may have a problem of semantics here. Primatologists at Yerkes, who were the first scientists to see it, considered the film authentic. Is that clearer?
[QUOTE]

I forgot to include links, but I corrected that error.

You then chastised me for not including quotes from people who were not from Yerkes.

No, I just included more quotes along with the whole quote. I didn't chastise you at all. The overall tone of the article seemed favorable, don't you think? I was a subscriber to National Wildlife, back then. It's too bad Life folded before they were able to publish the 7-page spread. It was about as mainstream as you can get.

I then said I did not need to include quotes from those folks, since they were not relevant to my point.

So I ask again.

Would you care to back up your claim?

I will when I can remember the source. I'm not sure it did have names, but the gist was that primatologists at Yerkes considered the film authentic and that reactions were favorable until someone at the Smithsonian thought there was "something wrong with it". The Smithsonian backed off, then everyone else did too, except for Napier.

Re your recent post on Chilcutt (I really have to leave now and don't want to take time to look it up), again, I suggest you see LMS. There are close-ups of what he's seeing. He explains how careful he has to be because his testimony puts people in jail. The dermals and the flow are quite clear.

Dermal ridges were "discovered" in 1982. Chilcutt was by no means the first person to see them.

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure it did have names, but the gist was that primatologists at Yerkes considered the film authentic and that reactions were favorable until someone at the Smithsonian thought there was "something wrong with it". The Smithsonian backed off, then everyone else did too, except for Napier.

Oh no! Not another conspiracy........

Lu, wouldn't it be huge if such a respected primate center had authenticated the P/G film?

It would be like NASA authenticating a UFO film.

I think it would in fact be the strongest evidence in support of the film, yet the claim is tenuous at best, and appears to be poorly documented.

It is a claim that should be well documented and trumpeted to the world as strong evidence in support of the film. Yet it isn't.

Probably because the claim cannot stand much scrutiny.

I believe the claim actually has no merit, and is in fact untruthful.

**********

I have this film that NASA examined and authenticated as film of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, but I can't remember who at NASA said so. Anyway, here's one NASA scientist who thinks the film could be genuine. "Insert quote here".

Oh well, it's not important. What's important is that I have genuine UFO footage.....

>>What! Wait a minute! NASA saw the film and agreed that it's real?

Yeah, but who cares..... we know the film is real.

**********

[LTC8K6]

I think sceptics will be interested in the Argosy magazine article of Feb 1968 at this link. The story of the filming is quite interesting.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php

It appears Patterson kept filming Patty even as she went up into the thick woods. Patterson himself apparently ran all the way into the thick woods.

Does Patty ever actually stop dead and look back?

"She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her."


While Roger took the film, Bob got the horses calmed down and then rode over the creek. Roger was running again after the Bigfoot, still hand-holding his movie camera. Despite the logs and trash on the route she took — and it was not even a game trail — he got some parting shots which turned out to be of particular interest to the scientists. But we will come to that later.

At that point, I asked Bob — because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly — "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her, too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but way ahead and really taking off for the hills."



Hmmmm...running again after the bigfoot. Again? Strange.

It reads like Patterson shot the first part of the film that we have all seen in clips, then ran after Patty again and shot more film.

I have been wondering about the angle towards Patty in those stills I can't find in clips. It has bothered me that it seemed to be from more directly behind Patty than the clips I had seen. A second film would explain that. Interesting.

"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off-running, I mean — because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three-and-a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!"

Lost a huge heavy primate in pine needles? One that leaves such deep tracks? Tracks that "sank into hard sand" ? I suppose it's possible, but my eyebrow is twitching. :D

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
That's the least of it. If there was any chance this normal-sized guy could have been a 500 lb. 6'5" -7' animal I'd make excuses for him too.

Now you know the exact weight of Patty? Where did you get this? Numerous people have attempted to guess the weight of Patty over the years, coming up with figures that range from 200 lbs. to 2,000 lbs. You just pick a number in the middle or something?

Surely you’ve seen the graphic juxtaposition of Bob H. and Patty, right? It’s dead-on. If they aren’t the same size, they’re at least the same proportions. Claiming otherwise is downright deluded.

Originally posted by LAL
He did interview those men, however, and made a further fatal mistake by putting pictures in the book. Bob Heironimus is shown to be a typical human, with legs too long and arms to short to match the creature in the film, and the type of suit the owner of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson is a typical gorilla costume not in the least like what the movie shows. .

This is what I mean by Bigfoot website fuzzy facts. First, one expert on a site will state that Patty is of human proportions because she’s a female Bigfoot, and another will then claim there’s some kind of consensus that Patty has proportions that are inhuman. Which is it? The bottom line is there’s no way to definitively state the exact weight, height or proportions of Patty. There are experts on both sides of the fence (albeit more on the skeptical) that will make the claim on one side or the other.

So cherry picking the conclusions of one does nothing to discredit Bob H’s story.

Originally posted by LAL
Long does have witnesses who say that Heironimus had a long history of claiming to have been the "man in the suit" and that they once saw such a suit in his car, but they make no connection to Patterson, there is only Heironimus' word on that.

So…let me get the razor-sharp reasoning on this one. Bob H. showed the suit to numerous people at the time…said people testified that they did see the suit…but since Patterson wasn’t there, even though Bob H. knew Patterson, said monkey suit wasn’t necessarily the Patty suit? Did I get that right?

Smells like desperation.

Originally posted by LAL
And Long has fitted blinders on himself so closely that he can see nothing wrong with his two key witnesses describing, with many specific details, two totally different suits--a three-piece suit made of raw horsehide and a six-piece suit made of cloth.

How many times are you going to post this dud? Morris never claimed he sold Patterson a Bigfoot suit. He sold him a monkey suit. Patterson modified the suit. Get it? Bob H. only saw the modified suit…Morris only saw the original suit. Two suits. Get it yet? Patterson told Bob H. he made it from horsehide…but Bob H. didn’t do a hair chemical analysis of the friggin’ thing. How was he to know it wasn’t? Who knows…maybe the modifications were of horsehide?

Originally posted by LAL
Long obviously worked hard on his book and I learned some things from it, so perhaps I should feel sorry for him being so easily taken in. It is his own fault however. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

And this kicker reveals the motives of the writer…to discredit Long at any cost. Such bile in that last paragraph. Why? Why does the author need to discredit this story?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL


Did you miss my post on what happened to it? The point is not ' what happened to it', the point is that a big chunk most credible ( according to some ) Bigfoot evidence ever is missing .

What we have is an ' edited ' (de' facto ) version of the film..

Don't you understand that there is a problem with that, if you expect to be taken seriously?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm

I guess this is the first report about the P/G encounter.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
.... BFF has a feature where you can search all the posts of any member, but I don't see anything like that on this board. ................ Just click on the ' Profile ' button at the bottom of any post.. It will bring up the members profile and an option to find all of their posts..

[LTC8K6]

Lu, when you look at a member's profile, there is a link in the upper right corner that allows you to search for all of their posts.

EDIT: Curses! Beaten again! :D

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
My favourite is the feet.

They are so flat and so white, to any observer it must be shoes. Probably sneakers.

Probably not shoes or sneakers. These would have been costume feet that only needed to look superficially real. For nearly all of the PGF the feet are not visible. Heironimus recalls the feet being like 'slippers'. That makes sense. They were probably built into the legs of the costume and had flat soles. Up close they would look terribly phony, but filmed from a distance they will fool just enough people to get the job done. The 'job' was for Patterson to hoax only enough people to make the venture economically worthwhile. His strongest supporters were (and still are) those who already thought that Bigfoot was a real creature. These people (like LAL) tend to focus on supportive evidence and ignore or diminish non-supportive evidence. The early days of the PGF promotion taught the Bigfoot mythmongers a big lesson. Never turn the primary evidence over to capable and motivated skeptics. Give it to believers instead. Whatever they say becomes the 'expert testimony'.

Take a close look at the feet on this Morris suit from the PGF era. We see what appears to be a sole platform with feet on top. This might be what Bob H. was calling 'slippers'.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1097961039.jpg

Now meet Paddlefoot once again from the PGF.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1083873179.gif

Still images of Paddlefoot (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=164572)

Patterson couldn't use the footprints of the guy in the costume. Those would be indistinct flat smudges. The 'Patty' prints that were photographed and cast were specially made for that purpose.

It was a fairly decent scam for 1967. No skeptical entities possessed the film or copies of it for intense scrutiny. Patterson would mostly control the whole shebang. The bits he would hand off would only be to those who already believed that Bigfoot was real. There was no kind of established meaningful skeptical realm in 1967. Surely many people (most?) did not think this was a real thing. But resources for skeptical criticism must have been scarce. Since everyone was dealing with film, it would not have been easy to review anything over and over and over again. Who knows if anyone noticed the costume material leg bulge as it showed itself for a split-second.

Now we have the technological luxury of intensively examining what we have. This is provided to us by the Bigfoot believers. We cannot examine the complete 'original' PGF to see if it may hold 'forensic' evidence that it was manipulated in any way. We cannot easily work with what is presently available. We are told to buy the "Legend Meets Science" DVD to get the best modern version of the film. One would think that there are commissions linked to this incessant promotion of a commercial video (now digital) presentation.

Patterson's widow has apparently not envisioned that her late husband filmed a massive wild American bipedal primate that is unknown to science... and that she should release all copyrights of the film and images for the betterment of human knowledge of the natural world.

[LTC8K6]

Well, that video looks nothing like any other clip I have seen, WP.

The feet look a lot better in patty3.mov, for example. They look like feet.

The feet in your clip actually look doctored to me, compared to other clips I have seen.

Where are these paddlefoot stills/clips from?

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
From all reports, Gimlin is too nice a guy to sue people for slander and/or libel, but I wish he would. And I hope you have a lot of money.

Stuff your Bigfoot myth perpetuation desperation where the sun don't shine. So, Bob Gimlin would rightfully sue William Parcher for libel if he weren't such a nice guy? Are you representing the soul and legal fortitude of Bob Gimlin?

Gimlin better not venture forth with suits against anyone. He was party to a filmed hoaxing of a wild gigantic stinking hairy ape living in northern California in 1967. May the Lord help him.

De Atley said he thought he would have chartered a plane and knew how long the flight was (9hrs.). Gimlin remembered going to the airport and the place that processed it may have been identified. DeAtley had some memory lapses about the events in his interview with Long.

That film processing timeline is so screwed-up that a Jedi Knight couldn't fix it.

The contradictions were over things like whether Roger's horse fell on him. If the two agreed on every detail, that would be suspicious. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous experiment where an unexpected event is staged for college students and all agree on practically nothing.

'Contradictions' is an understatement. Gimlin said that Petterson's horse didn't fall on him. Patterson said it did, and showed a bent metal stirrup to support his claim. No LAL, if P&G agreed on the details of the event it would support things, not lead to suspicions. The fact that they disagree on things soon after the event can only make matters worse. Patterson could have improved his scam if he made sure that everything Gimlin said would match him and also be rational in a big picture of the proposed filmed situation.

I'm not so sure the original is missing. Most of the second reel was never returned, but the reel with the animal may be "someplace safe". I doubt examination of the original today would show tampering any more than the first examinations did. The original was shown so much it was getting damaged.

The original may not be missing. It may be hidden. 'Someplace safe' is some place outside of the hands of skeptics. Modern examiniation probably wouldn't show 'tampering' any more than first examinations? Did those first examiners hold the film in their hands and look with magnifying lenses to see if there had been splicing? I do not recall any of the original witnesses of the film stating that they had physically (or otherwise) examined the 'original' film for any creative splicing. They seem to have all just watched the presented film itself (as it rolled through the projector) for improprieties.

When was the first time that the hernia/costume bulge was mentioned in publicly-accessible media?

Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus are the Bermuda Triangle of the PGF. These men were friends in Yakima, Washington 1967. Heironumus is now saying that it was all a big hoax and that he was the guy in the Bigfoot costume filmed by Patterson. That is a quite bold thing to claim with Gimlin still alive. I use the word 'bold' because Gimlin is still alive and could possibly present information that would truly show that Heironimus was not at all involved in the Bluff Creef incident whatsoever. Of course, Patterson is deceased.

Gimlin can't show that Bob H wasn't part of the scam. Gimlin and Heironimus still live on the same street in Yakima, Washington... no more than 1000 feet from each other. They no longer speak to each other. Why?

Gimlin says that he doesn't think the film was a hoax (or if it was, he had no idea that 'Patty' was a guy in a costume) and that the whole thing was a legitimate filming of a Bigfoot. Heironimus says that he was the guy in the costume that Patterson provided. He goes on to say that Patterson and Gimlin even had to personally help him get into the costume at Bluff Creef before the staged filming.

My personal feeling is that Gimlin would avoid a live recorded public debate with Heironimus concerning the PGF at all costs. But also, that Heironimus would be willing to debate Gimlin in a similar situation. I could be wrong.

[Skeptical Greg]

Methinks William Parcher's patience with creduloids, losing he is.. :D




( Enjoying you contributions William.. Hope you will continue .. )

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, that video looks nothing like any other clip I have seen, WP.

The feet look a lot better in patty3.mov, for example. They look like feet.

The feet in your clip actually look doctored to me, compared to other clips I have seen.

Where are these paddlefoot stills/clips from?

The patty3.mov doesn't reveal this foot sole. P3M doesn't seem to show this moment of revealing the sole at all. I think the stinky monkey lovers may have been monkeying with the stinky monkey in connection with the stinky monkey movie. If true, it's stinky. But perpetuating the reality of a mythical stinky monkey is probably going to involve stinky monkey business.

I got the animation from a Bigfoot Forum thread called "Patty Kinetiscope" (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5066&st=0). The original poster and creator of it is somebody named "primateer". In the past week of browsing through that forum, I can tell you that this particular dude has found teeth, small scars, poo-poo stuck on the butt and a rock being held in the hand of "Patty".

Here's a slowed down version of Paddlefoot. If you watch closely you will see bizarre things happen to the face, head and ears of the subject. Maybe Beckjord was right. The freaking beast morphs right in front of your eyes.

http://www.imgmag.org/images/ssprague/squatch.gif


How is this for a foot-shaped foot?

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4600/bigfoot23is.jpg

If you haven't seen patty3.mov, here it is (http://www.bigfootforums.com/media/patty3.mov). It will open in the QuickTime player.

I know this can all get swirled and confused. It helps just to get the Bermuda Bigfoot Triangle straight:

Roger Patterson = Monkey Hoax Man (deceased 1972)
Bob Gimlin = Monkey Hoax Man Assistant & Apologist
Bob Heironimus = Monkey Man

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Stuff your Bigfoot myth perpetuation desperation where the sun don't shine. So, Bob Gimlin would rightfully sue William Parcher for libel if he weren't such a nice guy? Are you representing the soul and legal fortitude of Bob Gimlin?

Gimlin better not venture forth with suits against anyone. He was party to a filmed hoaxing of a wild gigantic stinking hairy ape living in northern California in 1967. May the Lord help him.


Have you read his statement through his attorney? He probably had enough of groundless accusations like yours 38 years ago. I'll ignore your rudeness for now, but it's clear who's desperate to post a comment like that.


That film processing timeline is so screwed-up that a Jedi Knight couldn't fix it.

Speaking of Knights, here's Roger:

RogerKni Posted on: Jun 22 2005, 11:05 PM

Replies: 397
Views: 10,906

I've just revised the second paragraph of item I from the version I posted two posts above, to account for a Thursday mailing date. Now that BH is claiming an Oct. filming date, I thought harder about what his claimed timeline implies. BTW, I wonder if the idea that it was shot in Sept. was something Long encouraged BH to accept (to avoid an impossible film development timeline, perhaps), and that BH and/or his advisors now feel was a mistake that reduces his credibility. (Because of the red foliage in the film, and because it would make no sense for P&G to hand over the film and suit to BH if there were no announcement imminent.)
===================================

Another mistake BH made in following Patterson’s script was that he said he’d mailed the film at all (p. 350-51). That is what Patterson told Hodgson and the press, or anyway what they remember and reported him saying; but it’s impossible, because the Post Office couldn’t have delivered the film to DeAtley in time. BH’s time-line implies (counting backwards from the interrupted Saturday morning apple-shopping of his mom and the Saturday night visit by P&G after fleeing torrential rains early that morning) that the film was shot Thursday. The shadows in the film indicate it was shot in the afternoon. If so, BH would have handed it to the Eureka PO, 65 miles away, partly over a very rough road, near closing time that day. Next-day delivery was out, since neither Eureka nor Yakima were postal hubs. And so was two-day delivery, the Yakima PO being closed Saturday. Gimlin plainly remembers going to an airport, probably Murray field, and having it air-shipped by charter. Patterson may have been speaking in shorthand, to save his breath, by saying “airmail� (the word used in the paper the next day, not "post office")—or he may have thought of a charter air shipment as a kind of airmail. Anyway, he unintentionally thereby set a trap that BH has stepped into.

Forum: 'The Making of Bigfoot' Book · Post Preview: #238090

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4395&st=380&#entry238090entry238090

I see by my post it was ten hours, not nine. My bad. I had the book before me at the time. De Atley said he frequently chartered planes. It wasn't very expensive in those days.



'Contradictions' is an understatement. Gimlin said that Petterson's horse didn't fall on him. Patterson said it did, and showed a bent metal stirrup to support his claim. No LAL, if P&G agreed on the details of the event it would support things, not lead to suspicions. The fact that they disagree on things soon after the event can only make matters worse. Patterson could have improved his scam if he made sure that everything Gimlin said would match him and also be rational in a big picture of the proposed filmed situation.

A script, IOW. That would have been seized on at once. Gimlin was busy trying to control the horses and Patterson may have added a bit of drama. Too bad the only other witnesses, the horses, couldn't tell what they were so afraid of.


The original may not be missing. It may be hidden. 'Someplace safe' is some place outside of the hands of skeptics. Modern examiniation probably wouldn't show 'tampering' any more than first examinations? Did those first examiners hold the film in their hands and look with magnifying lenses to see if there had been splicing? I do not recall any of the original witnesses of the film stating that they had physically (or otherwise) examined the 'original' film for any creative splicing. They seem to have all just watched the presented film itself (as it rolled through the projector) for improprieties.

It was examined by at least one film expert whose name I will have to dig up. Splices wouldn't show up on first generation copies, I suppose. It could be somewhere safe to protect it from further damage. It's valuable.


When was the first time that the hernia/costume bulge was mentioned in publicly-accessible media?

It showed up on the enhanced version. Nelson and Meldrum examine it on LMS, which was copyrighted 2003. So, sometime before that.........do your own homework, will you?


Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus are the Bermuda Triangle of the PGF. These men were friends in Yakima, Washington 1967. Heironumus is now saying that it was all a big hoax and that he was the guy in the Bigfoot costume filmed by Patterson. That is a quite bold thing to claim with Gimlin still alive. I use the word 'bold' because Gimlin is still alive and could possibly present information that would truly show that Heironimus was not at all involved in the Bluff Creef incident whatsoever. Of course, Patterson is deceased.

Heironimus was nothing but a neighbor who thought he saw a way to cash in. Friends? Where are you getting that?
If he's so bold why didn't he blow the whistle before Roger died?


Gimlin can't show that Bob H wasn't part of the scam.


And Bob H can't show there was a scam.


Gimlin and Heironimus still live on the same street in Yakima, Washington... no more than 1000 feet from each other. They no longer speak to each other. Why?

Would you speak to someone who's done what he's done?


Gimlin says that he doesn't think the film was a hoax (or if it was, he had no idea that 'Patty' was a guy in a costume) and that the whole thing was a legitimate filming of a Bigfoot. Heironimus says that he was the guy in the costume that Patterson provided. He goes on to say that Patterson and Gimlin even had to personally help him get into the costume at Bluff Creef before the staged filming.

He says, he says.


My personal feeling is that Gimlin would avoid a live recorded public debate with Heironimus concerning the PGF at all costs. But also, that Heironimus would be willing to debate Gimlin in a similar situation. I could be wrong.

Gimlin explained at the Bellingham conference why he's being so patient. He considers himself a Christian. He must have taken the "turn the other cheek" part seriously.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, when you look at a member's profile, there is a link in the upper right corner that allows you to search for all of their posts.

EDIT: Curses! Beaten again! :D

Thanks. I haven't figured out how to look at a member's profile yet. On BFF you just click on the name.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Thurkon

Surely you’ve seen the graphic juxtaposition of Bob H. and Patty, right? It’s dead-on. If they aren’t the same size, they’re at least the same proportions. Claiming otherwise is downright deluded.

http://www.rense.com/1phts/compsp.JPG


Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big round of applause for The Monkey Man.

Bob, I'd like you to meet my friend Bob. Bob, I'd like you to meet Bob.

"I'm a flea-bit peanut monkey,
All my friends are junkies,
That's not really true."

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Lu, I really just want to know if those stills appear in any clips anywhere, including LMS. Mainly for the bottom of the feet. I want to know before I bother to look at LMS.

A locked knee is still what I see, but why should I bother with LMS if I am not going to see any more of the film?

You should see it because it contains the best copy out there. You can't possibly see the fluidity of the motion on these jerky clips.

There's a lot more in the extras, like the MD footage and Freeman '94.

[LAL]

Now we have the technological luxury of intensively examining what we have. This is provided to us by the Bigfoot believers. We cannot examine the complete 'original' PGF to see if it may hold 'forensic' evidence that it was manipulated in any way. We cannot easily work with what is presently available. We are told to buy the "Legend Meets Science" DVD to get the best modern version of the film. One would think that there are commissions linked to this incessant promotion of a commercial video (now digital) presentation.


Zaaydragon is getting it through the library. No one's trying to sell DVD's here. I tried to find it used online so the impecunious posters would be able to get it cheap, but I haven't found one yet.


Patterson's widow has apparently not envisioned that her late husband filmed a massive wild American bipedal primate that is unknown to science... and that she should release all copyrights of the film and images for the betterment of human knowledge of the natural world.

The film was tied up in copyright issues for years. Roger spent the money and she was left little but some of the rights until Dahinden died. I don't know what her plans are, but I think you need to stop being so judgemental of people you seem to know nothing about.

You seem to have a talent for fiction. Maybe you could make some money off this yourself by writing a novel based on your conjectures. Long's publisher might be interested.

[LAL]

Originally posted by William Parcher
http://www.rense.com/1phts/compsp.JPG


The image is on BFF and was on one of the first threads I read when I joined. How did it get to Rense.com?

You'd better read the rest of nightwing's thread. He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2".

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4721&hl=

Here's Heironimus doing the walk:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=8791

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
You seem to have a talent for fiction. Maybe you could make some money off this yourself by writing a novel based on your conjectures. Long's publisher might be interested.

Stuff it, LAL. Until you or your Bigfoot buddies rides into town with a gigantic bipedal primate carcass draped over your hood, you guys got all the nasty stuff stuck up your own arse.

You act like if I mistakely called the PGF filmer "Patty Rogerson", it would be just another notch in the plank of Bigfoot reality. You better bring Bigfoot into reality real quick. No, you need to bring it into reality decades ago. You can't and you won't.

If Bigfoot is a myth and bunches of people are erroneous, deluded and pretending that it is real... the situation would look exactly like it does now.

You are way cool for your indefatigability in this thread. You haven't budged the needle one millimeter closer to 'Bigfoot is Real'. Who cares. It's a myth. Nobody can possibly show that the beast is real. But, that doesn't matter. It's how you play the game. The Bigfoot Game. Yippee kiyah yea. You keep wearing those cowboy boots, Gimlin. You are ridin' a monkey dream. The dream that a dream monkey is a real monkey in the world of thinking monkeys. Monkey monkey monkey.


"And ye shall get away with anything that ye shall get away with." William 27:9

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LAL
You'd better read the rest of nightwing's thread. He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2".

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4721&hl=

Here's Heironimus doing the walk:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=8791

Nightwing who? What does 'nightwing' know about the proportions of the PGF figure? He's stirring his hand around in the darkness, isn't he? Even if I knew who 'wightning' was, it wouldn't matter. Bigfoot needs to be dragged into town with flies buzzing around the oozing juices, or else you and 'blightring' are fresh out of luck. Until then you can stuff this myth way up inside your sun-deprived parts. That goes for 'winghonk' too.

The big problem is that Bob H actually has an overall form and movement that intuitively looks like the PGF figure. Bob is 6'2"? Perfect. He would make an excellent Bigfoot. He already was a Bigfoot in 1967? Okay. Next Great American Myth is...

[bruto]

LAL wirtes: He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2"...

Exactly. You have continually argued that the proportions are not possibly those of a human. It appears, however, that they are. Scale is irrelevant, since one cannot accurately judge the size of the bigfoot in the film unless you have an absolute reference point in the film which is either the same distance from the camera as the bigfoot was, or a known distance which could be calculated if one also knew for sure what focal length lens was used (and not unless!). If one knew within a very very small range what distance the camera was from the bigfoot and also what focal length lens was used, one could also calculate its size, but as it is presented in the film, its size is entirely unknown because the distance is not known. Only its relative proportions are known. Proportions are relevant, and a superimposed image that shows this much similarity to human proportions means that the bigfoot in question has human proportions, as simple as that.

[LTC8K6]

Lu, the profile button is at the bottom each user's post.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
This is a huge problem with Bigfoot research, and Bigfoot websites in general. If they want to do honest research, then let them. Go to town. But keep it honest. Distorting the truth does nothing to further true scientific research.

The BFRO website is particularly guilty of this, and I suspect this is in large part a way to keep Moneymaker’s Bigfoot rodeo round-ups in full lucrative swing.

Really? Do give us some examples of this. I know one of the BFRO's goals was to keep a couple of full time researchers in the field. If MM has found a way to do this by raising money from the expeditions, I don't see any harm in that, even if MM is one of the ones. Have we heard his side of things yet? And what do you know of the BFRO besides what RayG posted? You said you were new. How did you get so educated so fast?

Another problem is…I notice a good deal of dubious website content, like BFRO’s, is simply cut and pasted from one Bigfoot site to another without any fact checking whatsoever.

You know this how? I post the links to original articles wherever possible, but some are no longer available except on the websites. I've never found so much as an altered word.

[LTC8K6]

William Parcher, the "paddlefoot" shown in that kinetiscope clip is not an accurate representation of the way the feet appear in the P/G film.

It is unfair, imo, to use it to discredit the film.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Let me refresh your memory, Lu.

I know how you hate to go back and read.

You made this claim just one page ago:



To refute that, I then listed two Yerkes primatologists who had seen the film shortly after it was made who did not authenticate the film.

I forgot to include links, but I corrected that error.

You then chastised me for not including quotes from people who were not from Yerkes.

I then said I did not need to include quotes from those folks, since they were not relevant to my point.

So I ask again.

Would you care to back up your claim?

I didn't chastise you in the slightest. By posting the context, the meaning of the quote becomes clear. I wouldn't want anyone to think you were quote-mining. The overall tone of the article was favorable, don't you think? I used to subscribe to National Wildlife, but that was before the article came out.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
William Parcher, the "paddlefoot" shown in that kinetiscope clip is not an accurate representation of the way the feet appear in the P/G film.

It is unfair, imo, to use it to discredit the film.

Wow. Tell it like it is.

[LTC8K6]

Thanks for the article. See how informative it is to post things in context and give the link?

It sure read like you were chastising me for leaving out irrelevant quotes, Lu.

Be that as it may, the only relevant item was Hill's opinion, which I quoted in it's entirety.

All of the quotes together still do not "authenticate" the P/G film anyway. Nor do they come anywhere near to backing up the claim that the film was authenticated.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Wow. Tell it like it is. Approx how long is the PGF footage in LMS ?

[LTC8K6]

I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't. :D

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
The image is on BFF and was on one of the first threads I read when I joined. How did it get to Rense.com?

You'd better read the rest of nightwing's thread. He's showing proportions here. The pics aren't to scale. BH is 6'2".

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4721&hl=



Nightwing’s post is so unscientifically desperate it hurts my brain.

He says the torso lengths differ. First, he starts Bob H’s top measurement lower on the neck. Very scientific, nightwing. Second…of course the torso length is different at the bottom…because in the second picture Bob H isn’t wearing a giant fur diaper.

Morris has already stated that he consulted with Patterson on how to lengthen the arms through a prosthesis. Is that what we’re seeing?

Nah, must be an elusive, undiscovered, giant, hairy-breasted primate.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LAL
Really? Do give us some examples of this.

My initial comments about this were in response to misinformation from a BFRO article.

Let’s just take an example from the BFRO site:

“The Patterson footage has never been debunked as a hoax. No one has ever demonstrated how it was done. Neither the original "costume," nor a matching costume, has ever been presented by honest skeptics, nor by various imposters who claim to have worn the costume.�

This is deceptive, or outright false. Morris and Bob H presented a pretty convincing costume, despite what Footers want to tell themselves. Bob H did demonstrate how it was done, regardless of whether you want to believe him or not. To claim no one has attempted is patently false.

BFRO’s site is peppered with this kind of garbage. It profits them to distort the truth.

Originally posted by LAL
I know one of the BFRO's goals was to keep a couple of full time researchers in the field. If MM has found a way to do this by raising money from the expeditions, I don't see any harm in that, even if MM is one of the ones. Have we heard his side of things yet? And what do you know of the BFRO besides what RayG posted? You said you were new. How did you get so educated so fast?


This Bigfoot stuff ain’t rocket science, honey. You can become educated on the best “evidence� for Bigfoot in about 16 minutes.

Do a search on anything Bigfoot related and you get the exact same articles cut and pasted into 20 different websites…all with the same erroneous information like the “inhuman� gait of Patty, inhuman proportions, and the “fact� that no expert has as of yet pronounced Patty a hoax (they have).

[Correa Neto]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4135670.stm

I predict footers will use this as "evidence" that there can be an unknown-to-the-science huge primate lurking in Nort America. New primate species were found, after all.
I predict the counter-argument will be: So, biologists can find a mouse-sized lemur in Madasgascar but fail to find a 3-m high ape in North America.

Where can I get my U$1000000,00?

Oh, am I the only one to find "just a bit" weird that just those particular guys -with a particular objective- were the ones to obtain the best footage on bigfoot (that is still not a good footage)? Why all the other wildlife photographers that work or worked in North America, producing Ed knows how many kilometers of film, have not managed to get at least, say, 30 seconds of nice bigfoot footage? Maybe because (pareidolia apart) immaginary creatures do not show on film, unless someone is using an immaginary creature costume?

Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears"

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't. :D

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

I wouldn't hesitate to plunk down $30 if I thought I would be getting something objective.

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage.

Supposedly, the encounter that was filmed lasted about two minutes.. I have never seen more than a few seconds..

The missing footage alone, is reason to consider the PGF inadmissible as evidence for anything..


The Bigfoot creduloids see all this amazing detail, but the facial features remain a blob, as do the soles of the feet.



I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this..


I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..

It seems obvious that the owner of the film could stand to gain a great deal by putting it in the right hands, whether it is a hoax or not.. The fact that they don't is suspicious in itself..


Oh, and did I mention there is nothing funny or unusual about the walk ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Correa Neto



Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears" Notice how they are not bothered by all the contradictions like:

They are skillfull at eluding would be trackers, but they have this strong smell that leaves no doubt of their presence..

[LTC8K6]

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage.

Yes, indeed. Provenance is a fancy word for it, I think. :D

I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this..


I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..


I have read these as well. The Argosy article seems to say that Patty is indeed standing still at the beginning of the P/G footage, which would be astonishing to me.

I have also read accounts of parts of the clips where Patty seems to scale differently, as if a zoom lens had been used or as if there are 2 different films of Patty at Bluff Creek.

Patty seems to have gotten well away in this shot, captured from the LMS DVD.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1081664983.jpg

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Lame footer arguments:
-"They were not looking for them...";
-"Its such a vast expanse of rugged terrain and so few specimens that...";
-"Wildlife photographer always keep focused (pun intended) in the small area within their telephoto lens, they would not see the bigfeet that may be walking behind them " (argument adapted from UFOlogists´ excuses on why astronomers don´t see UFOs);
-"Wildlife photographers don´t work at night, while bigfeet are nocturnal...";
-"Wildlife photographers don´t wander too much beyond roads...";
-"Bigfeet shapeshifed to bears"

You forgot a classic one. Wildlife photographers do see Bigfoot and possibly have photos. But they do not present this to anyone out of the fear of ridicule.

The believers count thousands of 'credible' Bigfoot sightings. They are also quick to mention that there must be many more that go unreported.

The whole thing is a game played by adults acting like children.

[bruto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Yes, indeed. Provenance is a fancy word for it, I think. :D



I have read these as well. The Argosy article seems to say that Patty is indeed standing still at the beginning of the P/G footage, which would be astonishing to me.

I have also read accounts of parts of the clips where Patty seems to scale differently, as if a zoom lens had been used or as if there are 2 different films of Patty at Bluff Creek.

Patty seems to have gotten well away in this shot, captured from the LMS DVD.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1081664983.jpg

I don't know what sort of camera was rented for the occasion, but if it was a reasonably good quality 16 mm. camera of the era, it would likely have had three prime lenses on a turret, rather than a zoom; if so a sudden change of focal length would not be in and of itself an anomaly. You'd expect them to change lenses from time to time as the subject changed distance, and these changes would have been abrupt.

What is still a problem for me is the fact that nobody, apparently, except for some distant "experts" has seen the other footage. For all her dancing around the subject, LAL cannot really explain why a party intending to shoot a bigfoot documentary woud have blown the majority of their film on scenery, leaving none at the end with which to document the tracks of the bigfoot they filmed, and why, if this is the case, the extra footage is now nowhere to be found. If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by William Parcher
You forgot a classic one. Wildlife photographers do see Bigfoot and possibly have photos. But they do not present this to anyone out of the fear of ridicule.

The believers count thousands of 'credible' Bigfoot sightings. They are also quick to mention that there must be many more that go unreported.

The whole thing is a game played by adults acting like children.

You're getting a bit too wrapped up in all this. Maybe you should take a breather, enjoy a good book:

http://idwpublishing.com/images/gallery/300_Bigfoot01.jpg (http://idwpublishing.com/?path=titles&view=title&id=96)

[LTC8K6]

bruto, the NASI report gives quite a bit of detail about the camera and the film and the copy that was made.

This is not the full report, though.

It may answer some of diogenes questions.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

[LTC8K6]

I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow! :D

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow! :D

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

I always thought that was wacky.

She's 7" 3" and she weighs 2,000 pounds???

Tubby little squatch.

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

Mating has been observed primarily between May and June, mostly between established pairs, and there is a suggestion of the birthing time lying between February and May. The duration of pregnancy (probably near 9 months) is partly related to the average weight of the species. Birth has been (very rarely) reported to occur in the squatting position, with other individuals nearby. The spacing of offspring is presumably governed by lowered fertility in consequence of demand feeding as well as infant mortality. On two occasions, females were observed carrying a dead infant.


Mating observed ? A birthing ? ( with a midwife or two standing by )


Does National Geographic know about this ? ' A Current Affair ' ?


Lu, is this really the circle you want to be associated with ?


I know ( hope ) you realize there is nothing to be debunked here; it is only to be held up to ridicule..


Have you looked into a study of critical thinking?


Have you looked at " SIX THINGS A NEW BIGFOOT RESEARCHER SHOULD THINK ABOUT "

over at BFF ? http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2947

It really has some good advice, except for a couple of points about the validity of what would be some real evidence...


I have heard that it's not nice to laugh at other people's beliefs, but it is also said " I'll stop laughing at what you believe, when you stop believing in funny stuff.. "

[Starrman]

predict footers will use this as "evidence" that there can be an unknown-to-the-science huge primate lurking in Nort America. New primate species were found, after all.

This actually kills the 'bigfoot exists 'argument for me. Yes they found a Lemur and look, they have already captured and photographed at least one, and quite cleary. Certainly this Lemur was not a mythical creature rumored for decades, having its own organizations out there on expeditions looking for it.

Certainly there aren't casts of the Lemur tracks in some now vindicated primatologist's office - where he is currently doing a little 'I told you so' dance.

If you read the article - these Lemurs are one of the most endangered species and are very little - yet some guy has one in his hand!

Yet we are to believe that we have no clear pictures and no specimen on a 500 pound ape-man that has been seen by thousands of eyewitnesses for decades? Or, if Patterson is genuine, one?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is one of my favorite examples of the silly crap over at BFRO..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

Mating observed ? A birthing ? ( with a midwife or two standing by )




Catch this one?

Through several longitudinal studies and incidental observations of footprints of family groups, an approximate growth scale has been constructed (Fig. 13). Sasquatch infants are born small ("like a 4 lb. preemie"), but are very fleet-footed at just a few years of age. The infant stays with the mother until puberty at age 10 or so, measuring about 6’ in height by then. Offspring seem to be spaced about 5 years apart, as judged by the admittedly small sample of grouped footprints; thus, a smaller infant will have the company of an older sibling for some years. A young male and one barely maturing female, as evidenced by immature breasts, about 7’ and 6’ tall, respectively, were seen keeping solicitous company.

Where the heck are they getting this stuff??? I've never read any eyewitness reports this detailed. You'd have to be living Goodall-style with Bigfeet for years to have this kind of data.

And this:

A sasquatch can hypothetically be expected to have a mean life expectancy of about 35 years, a number derived from a relationship that exists in mammals between body mass and length of life.

Maybe I'm dense, but what relationship would that be? Does more mass equal longer life/shorter life? Is this true?

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess they can hypothetically be expected to piss Guiness Stout.. Can't wait to catch one to see how this one plays out..:D

[LTC8K6]

I think i mentioned this way back there somewhere.

The BFRO apparently knows as much about bigfoot as the rest of the world knows about tigers, or elephants, or gorillas, or humans.

This despite the fact that they are nowhere near proving the thing exists, let alone proving anything else.

It's utter garbage pulled out of their butts.

Not only that, they are apparently going to keep repeating the garbage even if they get better data.

All dynamic biological aspects of the animal, particularly behavior, will continue to rely on eyewitness reports regardless of advances in anatomical knowledge.

Regardless of advances in anatomical knowledge????

What a bunch of brain dead idiots!

Was that too strong? :D

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It sure read like you were chastising me for leaving out irrelevant quotes, Lu.

Be that as it may, the only relevant item was Hill's opinion, which I quoted in it's entirety.

All of the quotes together still do not "authenticate" the P/G film anyway. Nor do they come anywhere near to backing up the claim that the film was authenticated.

Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax. Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

On the cover of Tattersal's The Fossil Trail (© 1995 and terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence) is a photo of two Australopithecus afarensis from the Museum of Natural History in New York (I just got an excellent copy for $3.02). The female has hairy breasts. Of course, they hadn't been discovered in 1967, but it would seem no one doing the display thought hairy breasts were unlikely for bipedal primates. So much for that objection. Sillier still was the opinion the breasts must have been air sacs because the figure in the PGF must have been male. As one scientist put it, we don't know what a Sasquatch breast looks like, so how would we know what a Sasquatch breast is supposed to look like?

[LTC8K6]

Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

I disagree, and you should make it clear when you are giving your opinion.

A newcomer might read that and get the impression that your statement is factual.

Just put "imo" in there somewhere when you are giving your opinion.

I will take that quote as a sign of defeat on your part anyway. It's a hell of a comedown from authenticated.

Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax.

Were they trying to show it was a hoax?

Irrelevant anyway. Sceptics do not have to show it was a hoax.

Believers do have to show it was sasquatch before they can tell me it's gestation period. :D

I'll tell you this, if the P/G film begins with sasquatch standing still, then I will shift from "I don't know" to "hoax".

[LTC8K6]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195109813/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-2698447-7404140#reader-link

I don't think the cover photo shows hairy breasts.

That exhibit photo is available elsewhere in a brighter version which is more revealing.

http://brattahlid.tripod.com/Image130.jpg

[bruto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
bruto, the NASI report gives quite a bit of detail about the camera and the film and the copy that was made.

This is not the full report, though.

It may answer some of diogenes questions.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

Interesting, in that the attempt to measure the subject appears to have been done without reference to the focal length of the lens. An attempt to set a scale by comparing a person or a bigfoot with another object in the background will never be accurate unless one knows the focal length of the lens, because the perspective will vary considerably. counting pixels won't help. I think the person doing this confuses precision with accuracy.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LAL
Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax. Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

On the cover of Tattersal's The Fossil Trail (© 1995 and terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence) is a photo of two Australopithecus afarensis from the Museum of Natural History in New York (I just got an excellent copy for $3.02). The female has hairy breasts. Of course, they hadn't been discovered in 1967, but it would seem no one doing the display thought hairy breasts were unlikely for bipedal primates. So much for that objection. Sillier still was the opinion the breasts must have been air sacs because the figure in the PGF must have been male. As one scientist put it, we don't know what a Sasquatch breast looks like, so how would we know what a Sasquatch breast is supposed to look like? So you are supporting your position with cover art from a book you are proclaiming to be " terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence "... ?


Of course we know what Sasquatch breasts look like!

We have the PGF .. Not to mention the description at BFRO ...

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
You wouldn't be into throwing me a little support here, would you?

Support? Not sure I understand. I support evidence, if and when it's presented.

What's your take on Wrinkle Foot?

Well, if you drag in the actual foot then I'm all for it. Footprints just don't do much to prove anything.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
Radford can see it with the rest of the public.

Noll has already stated he will not allow Radford to examine the cast, so I have to wonder why he [Radford] would waste money travelling to the West Coast just so he could be told he can't see the cast.

I would think the more people (especially scientists) examining the cast the better.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL
...the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available.

I agree. All the more puzzling why Noll refuses to allow Radford access to the Skookum cast. Radford has called the cast "the most significant [Bigfoot-related] find in the past two decades", if authenticated.

RayG

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I disagree, and you should make it clear when you are giving your opinion.

A newcomer might read that and get the impression that your statement is factual.

Just put "imo" in there somewhere when you are giving your opinion.

Overall, the quotes were favorable, IMO. Of course, a newcomer should be able to determine that just by reading them.

I will take that quote as a sign of defeat on your part anyway. It's a hell of a comedown from authenticated.

When did I say authenticated, and how does one opinion reflect the opinions of everyone who saw the film at Yerkes?


Were they trying to show it was a hoax?


Evidently they just viewed it. They certainly didn't show it was a hoax.


Irrelevant anyway. Sceptics do not have to show it was a hoax.


Of course not. All they have to do is say "bosh" and "bunk" and that settles it. Is "sceptic" a synonym for "scientist"?


Believers do have to show it was sasquatch before they can tell me it's gestation period. :D

I'll tell you this, if the P/G film begins with sasquatch standing still, then I will shift from "I don't know" to "hoax".

It doesn't. It starts with a lot of smears as Roger ran after it, but it's possible to see she was already in motion. (It was possible to determine the film speed from this. There's a detailed explanation of how this was done in Krantz' book.) The camera points down as he was trying for a better vantage point (after she turned)and ran out of film after she goes into the forest. Roger got into the heavy brush, but they decided not to pursue her into the forest. Her stride had lengthened by then and she was way ahead of them. The second roll was taken later, with shots of tracks and scenery.

I've been trying to find your earlier post on this. I lost my reply twice bring up articles, and couldn't find the post again searching from the profile page and then I ran out of time, so I'll just answer it here.

At no time does she stop.

No, he didn't change rolls while he was filming her. There was no time.

There were three individuals (alleged Sasquatches, not people) in the area at the time. This was the medium-sized one. Gimlin said he was wondering at the time what they would do if the big one showed up.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
There were three individuals (alleged Sasquatches, not people) in the area at the time. This was the medium-sized one. Gimlin said he was wondering at the time what they would do if the big one showed up.

What!!!

There were two other Bigfoots that Patterson DIDN'T film??? Why does no one ever mention this?

Why does it feel like you're just making stuff up?

Why do I get the feeling you're ignoring me?