PDA

View Full Version : Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 02:02 PM
I really like this picture Dfoot posted over at BFF

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

Source = http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=295600

We know Patty has a butt twin that happens to be a gorilla suit ..

Now it looks like she shares a jaw and chin ( and other features ) with a rubber mask...

Oh, yes.. It was available in '67 ...

Can't wait to hear the spin....

( Hey Dfoot.. Iasked your permission in a PM over at BFF.. If you say no, I will pull this..... )

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 02:11 PM
The more I look at that the more aghast I am..

Check out the snarl of the lips...

This mask nails the hoax as far as I'm concered..

I can't believe the fence sitters over at BFF don't jump all over this, while the chronic creduloids slither away in embarassment...


Dfoot, this mask is a thousand times more valuble than anything Long came up with..

We really need to get you some official recognition for this..


Extra ! Extra ! Stuntman Identifies Mask Used In Patterson Hoax !

Metullus
7th February 2006, 02:19 PM
You write that you invested the time needed to "locate and identify" the animals.

Did that include visual location and identification?
The goal was to eyeball the animal, and I have frequently succeeded.

Where was the cougar or bear? Not in a tree or cornered?
I have never cornered or treed a cougar. I have, however, succeeded in tracking and watching cougars on several occasions. Usually I am able to find them at choke points, creek crossings, and dens. I have spent as long as a week tracking a single big cat, and not always successfully.

Bears I have found much easier to track, if only because I am not so concerned about them back-trailing me and they are not as light and agile as the cats. In winter I almost always find them at a den-site, other times I have found them foraging. The larger bears are not all that quiet either.

Did your trained or untrained dogs refrain from barking? Or, if not, didn't the barking alarm the subject?
The Otterhound never barked or howled, although she did mutter a lot. :) Absolutely the best scenthound I've ever known. She could track scent that was more than 48 hours old. Just her presence was enough to flush a cat that I would otherwise have missed.

The dogs that made the greatest racket were the hunting dogs that we drafted for tracking purposes. I am certain they alarmed the bears.

The trained trackers - a pair of Bloodhounds - belonged to a friend of mine that used them to track lost pets and the occaisional bear. They were great but would get a little bit enthusiaatic when we would get close. They were also of little use if we were going to be out for more than a day or two (they had no "off" switch).

The quietest dog I ever used was a 100lb Bouvier that was no good whatsover as a scent-hound but was very smart when we would get to the vicinity of the animal. He would stop in his tracks and stare right in the direction of the bear. When that would happen I'd know that we were very close indeed.

We did not use the dogs to "run down" the quarry. We used them to keep us on the trail - when there were long gaps between spoor or poor ground for prints - and to warn us if we were coming up on something unexpected. In the case of the cats I always assumed that they were watching us and so I was, well, a mite bit concerned that they might circle around on our back-trail. That was never an issue with bears.

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 02:39 PM
The trained trackers - a pair of Bloodhounds - belonged to a friend of mine that used them to track lost pets and the occaisional bear. They were great but would get a little bit enthusiaatic when we would get close. They were also of little use if we were going to be out for more than a day or two (they had no "off" switch).




In the movies, bloodhounds are given a sample to get them started...

How do you get them started on a particular trail, of say,a particular bear ? Put their nose to a foot print ?

Metullus
7th February 2006, 02:57 PM
In the movies, bloodhounds are given a sample to get them started...

How do you get them started on a particular trail, of say,a particular bear ? Put their nose to a foot print ?
Pretty much, yeah. It's better if you can find scat or a tuft of fur. If you can find a tree with claw marks it can work too. If all else failed, we would follow a trail until the dogs caught on by osmosis. The thing is that these dogs really want to follow a scent trail. They'll find a trail all by themselves if you give them a chance.

I never handled the Bloodhounds because it all seemed kind of woo to me.

The otterhpund was a different matter. She would catch on to the fact that we were following a scent-trail (albeit by looking at the ground) and take it from there.

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 03:12 PM
Pretty much, yeah. It's better if you can find scat or a tuft of fur. If you can find a tree with claw marks it can work too. If all else failed, we would follow a trail until the dogs caught on by osmosis. The thing is that these dogs really want to follow a scent trail. They'll find a trail all by themselves if you give them a chance.

I never handled the Bloodhounds because it all seemed kind of woo to me.

The otterhpund was a different matter. She would catch on to the fact that we were following a scent-trail (albeit by looking at the ground) and take it from there. Of course this entire discussion is moot, since we all know you can't use dogs to track animals in the PNW..

Metullus
7th February 2006, 03:20 PM
Of course this entire discussion is moot, since we all know you can't use dogs to track animals in the PNW..
Of course. Silly me. Sorry about the derail.

Flange Desire
7th February 2006, 06:09 PM
Dogs that track sasquatches (like grizzlies) end up whipped, dead, or running home to their handler.

The reason for that is because black bears and cougars will run up a tree.

Grizzly and sasquatch fight.

Any more questions?

Yes, LOTS more questions after reading THAT GEM!
But lets just focus on the one for now...

You originally wrote

We don't know what sasquatches will do. The reports indicate that they fight, and do so well. So well that dogs are reluctant to run them.


I asked you how the dogs managed to learn to be reluctant,
but you have not done that yet.

Perhaps what you meant to write was 'I heard some stories',
rather than 'The reports indicate'.

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 07:51 PM
I really like this picture Dfoot posted over at BFF

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

Source = http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=295600

We know Patty has a butt twin that happens to be a gorilla suit ..

Now it looks like she shares a jaw and chin ( and other features ) with a rubber mask...

Oh, yes.. It was available in '67 ...

Can't wait to hear the spin....

( Hey Dfoot.. Iasked your permission in a PM over at BFF.. If you say no, I will pull this..... )
O.K. Guys .. I blew it big with this...

I believe now this is a mask that Dfoot is putting together, not a ready made mask from the 60's..


Man, I saw what I wanted to see and couldn't wait to pass out crow..

Pleeeeeeeease, let this thread die now.. I am so embarrased..:footinmou

Hitch
7th February 2006, 07:59 PM
O.K. Guys .. I blew it big with this...

I believe now this is a mask that Dfoot is putting together, not a ready made mask from the 60's..


Man, I saw what I wanted to see and couldn't wait to pass out crow..

Pleeeeeeeease, let this thread die now.. I am so embarrased..:footinmou
Only semi-blew it. If I'm not mistaken both parts of the mask were off the shelf in the 60's. It could have been built just as easily and cheaply then as Dfoot did it.

Skeptical Greg
7th February 2006, 08:09 PM
Only semi-blew it. If I'm not mistaken both parts of the mask were off the shelf in the 60's. It could have been built just as easily and cheaply then as Dfoot did it.

That is true, and the point well made..

Just not the coup I imagined I had made for a while there..

I certainly wish I had been more restrained , and pointed out the ' mask parts available in the 60's ' part, that you have reminded me of..

LTC8K6
7th February 2006, 08:25 PM
No need to be embarrassed.

You're only human. :D

LTC8K6
7th February 2006, 10:05 PM
The believers want someone to duplicate the suit, anyway.

I still want to know where Marx got his suits.

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfoot-lg.jpg

Huntster
8th February 2006, 11:34 AM
.....We did not use the dogs to "run down" the quarry. We used them to keep us on the trail - when there were long gaps between spoor or poor ground for prints - and to warn us if we were coming up on something unexpected......

I find this interesting. Not familiar with hunting dogs, I've always thought of such as running down (or treeing) the quarry.

Although I know one bear guide on Kodiak Island who had his dog with him for the purpose of warning him if a bear was sneaking up on them.

...In the case of the cats I always assumed that they were watching us and so I was, well, a mite bit concerned that they might circle around on our back-trail. That was never an issue with bears...

Circling is classic cat behavior. I have little experience with cats.

But I have a lot of experience with bears, and I have had them circle and follow me.

Huntster
8th February 2006, 11:38 AM
....I asked you how the dogs managed to learn to be reluctant,
but you have not done that yet.....'.

All I know is this:

My dogs, when confronted with fresh bear sign, whine and want to leave.

My dogs, who love table scraps, will not eat bear meat, even after it is cooked. They bark at it.

Why? I don't know.

I'll ask them........

...Perhaps what you meant to write was 'I heard some stories',
rather than 'The reports indicate

Take it as you wish.

Huntster
8th February 2006, 11:40 AM
O.K. Guys .. I blew it big with this...

I believe now this is a mask that Dfoot is putting together, not a ready made mask from the 60's...

What? You didn't know that?

...Man, I saw what I wanted to see and couldn't wait to pass out crow.....

What is more disturbing is not seeing what you want to see, but in unseeing what is so painfully clear;

you are prejudiced.

Huntster
8th February 2006, 11:45 AM
...If I'm not mistaken both parts of the mask were off the shelf in the 60's....

If a dog had a square ***..............

What do you base your opinion regarding suitbuilding on?

Are you prepared to say that, since a stuntman employed in the motion picture industry today can possibly build a suit that might come close to replicating the PG film, that the rodeo rider did it 40 years before?

And you, too, are scientific and not prejudiced?

Dfoot has promised to put his suit in motion and film it. I've refrained from judgement until he has a chance to do so. I suggest you do likewise.

Otherwise, you are pre-judging.

Prejudice.

Huntster
8th February 2006, 11:46 AM
The believers want someone to duplicate the suit, anyway.

I still want to know where Marx got his suits.

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfoot-lg.jpg

Do you compare this to the subject in the Patterson film?

Dfoot
8th February 2006, 12:03 PM
That is true, and the point well made..

Just not the coup I imagined I had made for a while there..

I certainly wish I had been more restrained , and pointed out the ' mask parts available in the 60's ' part, that you have reminded me of..

:o Those two masks glued together came from DON POST STUDIOS and available in 1967.

Patty is a modified gorilla suit and could easily be made then or now. (*Not that it matters but I'll make one when I have time just for the hell of it)

Below are the gorilla gloves sold for $19.95 by Post in '67. They sure look familiar to me.

The Bigfoot with a camera is just some guy admiring himself. It's not a real Bigfoot - lest anyone think otherwise.

- Dfoot

Mick Houlahan
8th February 2006, 01:15 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me.[/QUOTE]


Yep. They look just like my old "footie" pajamas. Lily-white, flame-retardant, and sweat-inducing. I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

Skeptical Greg
8th February 2006, 01:18 PM
If a dog had a square ***..............



Prejudice. Yes I am..

But not about Patty.. I made no judgement until I examined the evidence and found it wanting... In fact, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, until I took a closer look..

I made a mistake and admitted it.. Something you have yet to do..

So I guess you must be perfect....

Huntster
8th February 2006, 03:05 PM
....I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

Then why all the attention to detail, like the need for a mask that has a movable mouth?

Huntster
8th February 2006, 03:09 PM
...I made a mistake and admitted it.....

Not necessarily a mistake.....


You were premature in assuming that the mask was the work of the current times.

Pre

Just like Pre-judice; judging before the proper time.

Yes I am...

tube
8th February 2006, 04:33 PM
In some of the better stills from the film the heels of the film subject can be clearly seen. In some of the shots the heel is rounded and looks quite "natural" while in other shots the heel is strangely squared off. Why is this? Even for those who assert that Sasquatch has an articulated foot, there has never been an assertion that the calcaneus (heel bone) is flexible. If you believe you are looking at a real Sasquatch the answer of course is that this is an illusion due to a combination of perspective, light and shadow, and the fact we are not looking at the original film. For skeptics like Kal Korff the frame with the square heel indicates an obvious non-animal heel.

Frankly I'm more inclined to buy the shadow and perspective explanation, as I doubt even an ape-suit foot could be that floppy. Floppy things usually don't form neat right angles. But not being a suit designer, I'm lacking in expertise about exactly how floppy they really are.

But if we are looking at a feature as gross as a large heel that morphs that much, how can we trust claims about much smaller features like teeth, boils, scars, and eye infections?

I'm sorry to see MK Davis fail to return to this forum. I still have unanswered questions.

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 06:00 PM
Matt, I suggest that you always consider the possibility that any still image from the PGF may have had artistic manipulation for the purpose of added realism and believability.

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 06:14 PM
....I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

Then why all the attention to detail, like the need for a mask that has a movable mouth?

The Patty headpiece/mask may not have a moveable mouth.

M.K.Davis
8th February 2006, 07:15 PM
In some of the better stills from the film the heels of the film subject can be clearly seen. In some of the shots the heel is rounded and looks quite "natural" while in other shots the heel is strangely squared off. Why is this? Even for those who assert that Sasquatch has an articulated foot, there has never been an assertion that the calcaneus (heel bone) is flexible. If you believe you are looking at a real Sasquatch the answer of course is that this is an illusion due to a combination of perspective, light and shadow, and the fact we are not looking at the original film. For skeptics like Kal Korff the frame with the square heel indicates an obvious non-animal heel.

Frankly I'm more inclined to buy the shadow and perspective explanation, as I doubt even an ape-suit foot could be that floppy. Floppy things usually don't form neat right angles. But not being a suit designer, I'm lacking in expertise about exactly how floppy they really are.

But if we are looking at a feature as gross as a large heel that morphs that much, how can we trust claims about much smaller features like teeth, boils, scars, and eye infections?

I'm sorry to see MK Davis fail to return to this forum. I still have unanswered questions.
I'm still trying to keep up Matt. I'm working long hours right now. The square heel, in my opinion is the result of slow shutter speed and movement of the foot during the exposure. Patterson's camera was running at the lower limit of being able to freeze action. Some movements were quick enough that they smeared. This is a known phenomenon and does not bode for or against authenticity, in my opinion. Here is a photo taken with too slow a shutter speed. Notice that the dog's head has smeared, however the eye remains properly shaped. This is called " burn in". All kinds of odd things happen with film during lengthy exposures. M.K.

M.K.Davis
8th February 2006, 07:22 PM
Here's the photo after enhancement, targeting the eye. M.K.

M.K.Davis
8th February 2006, 07:24 PM
Here's the photo after enhancement, targeting the eye. M.K. MMM, the image didn't load. I'll try again. M.K.

Skeptical Greg
8th February 2006, 07:29 PM
The slow shutter speed would account for some of the bluriness, but you would expect almost every frame to be blurred since the subject is in motion throughout the film.
Along with the fact that the camera rarely comes close to anything you could call stable, what we have is a pretty crappy piece of film.

If patterson had done the logical thing, like steady himself against a tree, I think we would be looking at even less of the film than we are now.

Indeed, perhaps he did steady himself against a tree at some point, and for obvious reasons, is not part of what we see...

Skeptical Greg
8th February 2006, 07:38 PM
I'm still trying to keep up Matt. I'm working long hours right now. The square heel, in my opinion is the result of slow shutter speed and movement of the foot during the exposure. Patterson's camera was running at the lower limit of being able to freeze action. Some movements were quick enough that they smeared. This is a known phenomenon and does not bode for or against authenticity, in my opinion. Here is a photo taken with too slow a shutter speed. Notice that the dog's head has smeared, however the eye remains properly shaped. This is called " burn in". All kinds of odd things happen with film during lengthy exposures. M.K. Meaningless unless you quantify ' lengthy '..

What was the shutter speed of the picture you are showing us; and how does it compare to the range of speed we may be seeing in the film..

Regardless; ' burn in ' will not improve the physical resolution limit of the emulsion.

tube
8th February 2006, 07:50 PM
I'm still trying to keep up Matt. I'm working long hours right now. The square heel, in my opinion is the result of slow shutter speed and movement of the foot during the exposure. Patterson's camera was running at the lower limit of being able to freeze action. Some movements were quick enough that they smeared. This is a known phenomenon and does not bode for or against authenticity, in my opinion. Here is a photo taken with too slow a shutter speed. Notice that the dog's head has smeared, however the eye remains properly shaped. This is called " burn in". All kinds of odd things happen with film during lengthy exposures. M.K.

OK, that makes sense. This is called "motion blur" correct? Since the foot is moving more quickly that the rest of the body it blurs more, correct?

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 07:52 PM
The slow shutter speed would account for some of the bluriness...

It would if it did, but it mostly didn't. The PGF is only blurry when Patterson was moving the camera. Many still images from the PGF are not really blurry at all.

...but you would expect almost every frame to be blurred since the subject is in motion throughout the film.

Only some frames are blurry... when Patterson was moving the camera. Much of the footage seems to reveal that Patterson held the camera quite steady.

Along with the fact that the camera rarely comes close to anything you could call stable, what we have is a pretty crappy piece of film.

The camera is stable for many "critical moments". It was certainly stable for frame 352 and other famous still images taken from the film.

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 07:54 PM
OK, that makes sense. This is called "motion blur" correct? Since the foot is moving more quickly that the rest of the body it blurs more, correct?

Fine, except that in the "Paddlefoot" and "Blockfoot" still images, the foot really isn't blurry at all.

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 08:04 PM
http://www.texasbigfoot.com/bigfoot-lg.jpg

I don't think that this Bigfoot costume has been replicated by professionals or amateurs. Is this because it cannot be replicated, nobody is really interested in replicating it, or what?

Hitch
8th February 2006, 08:37 PM
If a dog had a square ***..............

What do you base your opinion regarding suitbuilding on?

Are you prepared to say that, since a stuntman employed in the motion picture industry today can possibly build a suit that might come close to replicating the PG film, that the rodeo rider did it 40 years before?

And you, too, are scientific and not prejudiced?

Dfoot has promised to put his suit in motion and film it. I've refrained from judgement until he has a chance to do so. I suggest you do likewise.

Otherwise, you are pre-judging.

Prejudice.

I based my opinion on that having read (and actually paid attention to) Dfoots first post about how he created that mask.

I qualified my statement because I didn't take the time to go back and find that post. I figured most people reading this thread and caring anything about the subject would remember it.

I did not take into consideration the narrow-minded woos who can't be bothered to read what's put in front of them because they simply want to argue whether they have a leg to stand on or not.

William Parcher
8th February 2006, 09:24 PM
Matt, I am enjoying the BFF thread on the "Minnesota Iceman". I understand that you did work in a carnival(s). My sister is a carny. You have used the term mark, but I don't think you've defined it yet on BFF. Some folks might not know what it means.

I have always been fascinated with carnival culture. Sis tells me that "mark" is a general term, but that her show specifically uses the term "town mark". Did you ever hear that one? It seems redundant to me, but vernacular never has to truly be grammatically-economical. Most marks in the midway are going to be coming from the town that the show is visiting anyway.

"Giant Sumatran Rats"?! Hell yes, I'll pay a dollar to look at some nutrias. The local zoo charges $12 for admission and they don't even display these critters.

rgann
8th February 2006, 11:08 PM
If a dog had a square ***..............

What do you base your opinion regarding suitbuilding on?

Are you prepared to say that, since a stuntman employed in the motion picture industry today can possibly build a suit that might come close to replicating the PG film, that the rodeo rider did it 40 years before?

And you, too, are scientific and not prejudiced?

Dfoot has promised to put his suit in motion and film it. I've refrained from judgement until he has a chance to do so. I suggest you do likewise.

Otherwise, you are pre-judging.

Prejudice.

Huntser

I want to make sure I am following this discussion correctly, if I read the previous posts right Diogenes thought the image Dfoot posted was a mask made from the sixties, he then realized it was an IMAGE created by Dfoot and not a ready made mask and then he politely admitted he had jumped to conclusions both here and at BFF. Then Hitch correctly stated that Dfoot had put together two sixties era masks to make the Patty Suit he built (a tor johnson mask and a chimp mask). If I am incorrect in my understaning of what was said hopefully someone can correct me.

I am confused by your contention that it is somehow prejudiced and unscientific to think Dfoots work calls into question the validity of the P&G film. What he has accomplished is to seriously undermine two of the major tenets bigfoot advocates claim. (1) No one has ever come close to replicating the suit. (2) Materials where not available to patterson during the late 1960's. I am unaware of "putting the suit in motion" ever being one of Dfoot original goals, he seems to have stated "look what I have discovered and how I did it" I am not sure why anyone has to refrain from judgement, he built a suit it looks pretty damn good he explained how he made it using 1960s materials.

and exactly what would a dog do if he had square ***.?

Rick

tube
9th February 2006, 12:49 AM
Matt, I am enjoying the BFF thread on the "Minnesota Iceman". I understand that you did work in a carnival(s). My sister is a carny. You have used the term mark, but I don't think you've defined it yet on BFF. Some folks might not know what it means.

I have always been fascinated with carnival culture. Sis tells me that "mark" is a general term, but that her show specifically uses the term "town mark". Did you ever hear that one? It seems redundant to me, but vernacular never has to truly be grammatically-economical. Most marks in the midway are going to be coming from the town that the show is visiting anyway.

"Giant Sumatran Rats"?! Hell yes, I'll pay a dollar to look at some nutrias. The local zoo charges $12 for admission and they don't even display these critters.

I was a sideshow performer, not a carny. I was one of the founding members of the Jim Rose sideshow, which started in Seattle in the early 1990's. A book about our adventures by Jan Gregor is entitled Circus of the Scars.

"Mark" is old time carny slang for an unsophisticated customer. Our audience was more of the "modern primitive" type.

I've seen Bobby Reynolds' "100 pound rat" exhibit in Coney Island, it was actually a 100 pound capybara.

After reading Greg Long's book, I see many similarities between Jim Rose and Roger Patterson...

RayG
9th February 2006, 04:27 AM
I was a sideshow performer, not a carny. I was one of the founding members of the Jim Rose sideshow, which started in Seattle in the early 1990's.

Ah, so that's where 'tube' came from. :D

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rose_Circus
Matt "The Tube" Crowley, whose moniker came from the seven feet of tubing that he would swallow. The other end of the tube was attached to a crude hand pump. Rose himself would fill the pump with a variety of fluids and proceed to pump it into Crowley's stomach, then back out again. Audience members were invited onstage to drink the vile concoction after it had been extricated from Crowley. He would also provide a demonstration of sheer lung power by blowing up a hot water balloon with his mouth until it burst.

RayG

LAL
9th February 2006, 04:43 AM
Do you compare this to the subject in the Patterson film?

Marx was seen buying furs; presumably he made the suit, or he and his wife did.

Not all the photos are Marx' but here's a review of his "documentary":

http://www.bijoucafe.com/goods/bijou_store1vcd_L.htm

(Check out what happens when you click on the photos.)

"Back in Vancouver Rene kept his finger on the Bossburg pulse through regular telephone contact with Ivan Marx. And it seemed that every time he called, Marx had found something; a handprint here, a footprint there, signs of an unusually heavy creature bedding down in the bush; always something to keep the trail warm.

Marx phoned him one evening that October (1970) and said, "I've got a film of the cripple." The hows and wherefores of the filming were reported in the Colville Statesman Examiner under the byline of Denny Striker, late of the Metlow pursuit:

On the night of Oct. 6 an unidentified person called the Marx home, leaving a vague message that either a car or a train had struck a large upright creature on the highway about seven miles north of Bossburg. Marx was away at the time but when he received the message ... he left immediately for the area with a hunting dog he hoped would follow the spoor of the Sasquatch, if indeed that was what it actually was.

Marx was armed with nothing more than a Bolex 16mm movie camera with a 17mm lense, a 35 mm Nikon and a two-way radio with which he had contact with rancher Don Byington, who was in the area by the time Marx's dog had located the creature.

The day was heavily overcast with smoke ... when Marx jumped the creature in the bottom of a dense draw and began filming. The initial footage shows a large black upright figure moving stealthily but rapidly through the dense growth, but only in silhouette.

Marx pressed the pursuit with his hound, forcing the Sasquatch into a clearing where, with his movie camera set at f2.8 he took the remarkably clear footage of an impressive looking creature. On the screen the Sasquatch is shown moving from right to left at an angle of about forty-five degrees away from the photographer. Distance from the subject according to Marx ranged from twenty-five feet to more than a hundred feet as it made its way into the heavy underbrush on the far side of the clearing.

Probably the most impressive part of the film, besides its extreme clarity, is the fact that the Sasquatch is visibly injured, holding its right arm tightly to its chest and using its long muscular left arm for compensating balance. Also, both ankles of the creature seem badly skinned, the wounds showing plainly raw against the black hair of the legs and feet.

In watching the frames singly, the injured or skinned area appears to extend onto the bottom of one foot, and possibly on both feet, which would account for the apparent pain-filled movements of the frightened creature. As the Sasquatch is nearing the far side of the clearing, a twisted tree limb is stepped on, bouncing up and striking it above knee level. Marx, the following day, photographed this stick, which was ten feet long. In comparison the creature photographed would have stood about nine feet tall and Marx estimated its weight as that of two large bears, or around seven to eight hundred pounds.

The only thing the film is lacking is a facial feature on the creature. Twice while crossing the clearing the Sasquatch turned its head to glare at Marx. The first time it turned 180 degrees and uttered a weird scream, which was heard by Byington, positioned on a ridge nearby. The second time it turned a full 360 degrees, appearing quite confused, but the lack of light prevented any facial features from showing plainly ....

Marx said he continued pursuit of the creature until darkness prevented further advance, and when the trail was recovered the following day, it led through a maze of rugged terrain and finally to a body of water where it was lost. He feels the Sasquatch is very old and apparently hurt quite badly.

Striker finished the story with a statement from René who had arrived in Bossburg: "Ivan has a movie and that leaves only two choices. Either it is real or it is not. That's what I'm here to find out."
The story had been released to the wire services and the second siege of Bossburg was under way. Dickie Davis was right back in the fray, tossing offers around for the film, author Ivan Sanderson phoned on behalf of Argosy Magazine, and the usual crowd of Sasquatch devotees was there.

Tom Page flew in dangling before Marx a cheque for $25,000, for the film or a copy of it. He made the proposition possibly out of desperation, in light of his earlier experiences at Bossburg-that Marx could have the cheque if he would confirm or deny the authenticity of the film. Whether he would have honored the offer if Marx had said the film was faked is a moot but nonetheless intriguing question. The fact that Marx declined that offer should have loaned immediately to the film at least a touch of uncertainty.

Most of the hunters were saying for publication that Marx had the genuine article. René conceded reluctantly that such might be the case, more from a desire to believe Marx's wife, whom he respected and liked and who was confirming her husband's story, than from conviction. John Green arrived and wasted no time in declaring the film authentic. He offered Marx eight hundred dollars for a copy, of which action Rene reflects dryly, "I guess he wanted two Sasquatch films." (The other one being the Patterson film.) Green was moved to write a tribute to Marx for the pages of the Bigfoot Bulletin, a mimeographed publication sent out intermittently from a base in Oakland, California. Part of it read: "I am satisfied...that he could not have faked all he has to show, and that the film is genuine."

Don Byington, the rancher who had been within walkie-talkie distance of Marx when the film was shot, had two young children, and these youngsters, from the time the film was first shown, were heard to murmur that they knew well the location of the filming (Marx had kept the spot secret). No one paid them any heed. The film stayed in limbo and the winter marched on. Still Marx had taken no offer for his film, had released no part of it for publication in any medium.

Then on the scene came Peter Byrne, a British adventurer and hunter who had been part of the Tom Slick sponsored expeditions in the Himalayas and in northern California. Byrne still had a source of financing and he and Marx came to an arrangement: Marx would be paid a monthly retainer as a Sasquatch hunter of $750, and his film would be placed in a bank safety-deposit box as security. This arrangement carried through to the spring of 1971, Marx being comfortably subsidized to pursue his hunting while at the same time having to make no commitments about the film. But Peter Byrne was considerably less gullible than might have seemed. The Byington children kept harping, as kids will, about how they knew exactly where the film had been shot, and Byrne listened to them. The children led the hunters to a spot at the back of the Byington property immediately recognizable as the film site.

In the film the creature brushes its head against a tree limb. The limb was located and was found to be less than six feet from the ground, shaking Marx's estimate of nine feet for the creature's height. And a comparative film indicated that certain features on the Marx film could not have appeared as they did if he had filmed from the spot he said he had filmed from and with the equipment he said he had used. It was then established, through Peter Byrne's persistent probing, that Marx's camera on the day of the filming was equipped with a telephoto lense and not, as he had said, a regular one. And finally it was discovered that shortly before the film was taken Marx had been buying a considerable quantity of fur pieces in Spokane. The case fell apart, Marx by this time having left the area. The unkindest cut came for Peter Byrne when he went to the bank to inspect his security and found only a roll of black, exposed celluloid.

Later Marx claimed to the others that he had taken and passed a lie detector test over the incident and had passed it, but no one ever knew where or when this had occurred. René's response to the claim is a cryptic: "I'm sure he could take one any time and pass it with flying colors."

There was a sequel to Marx's fling at cinematography in the fall of 1972. On Saturday Oct. 21 he appeared on "You Asked For It," a U.S. television show that pursues odd and interesting items at the request of its entranced audience. This time Marx was both the requestee and one of the subjects. He appeared with the show's host, clutching a sealed can of movie film of a creature he said he had photographed during a snow storm in northern California. Marx's never-ending search for the truth had once more culminated in his seeing a Sasquatch, this time a white one. He had followed it through the deepening snow until he realized he could predict its route and, as he quaintly put it, "head it off at the pass." This he did, having enough time to set up his camera, tripod and all, before the thing lurched into view. The TV host then explained that Marx had brought the film straight from the camera, unprocessed, and that the show's producer would print the film under the strictest of supervision and would then examine it. Following a commercial break we were flashed ahead in time to where the film had been processed, and we saw the subject. It was marvelously clear, and outrageous. A primate expert whom the TV people had co-opted for an opinion said it best: "I think it's a man in a beast's suit." It certainly was someone in a beast's suit. Great folds of the suit swung around like an old army blanket amid the California snows as the thing cavorted before the camera, now running comically towards it, now turning about and gallivanting off through the drifts, flipping its clumsy feet backwards and sideways as one does when running through deep snow in an overcoat. It seemed almost to be chuckling as it went. Whether Marx was the perpetrator or the victim of a hoax in this case will likely remain unanswered. But there was little doubt that what we were watching was a snow job in a blizzard.

So the crippled footprints of 1969 had set in motion a chain of events that went full circle and arrived at nothing, while the prints themselves were, for the time being, virtually forgotten. The events had undoubtedly placed under a cloud the search for the Sasquatch and those few who, like René, remained seriously and honestly devoted to it."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

LAL
9th February 2006, 04:53 AM
Fine, except that in the "Paddlefoot" and "Blockfoot" still images, the foot really isn't blurry at all.

I think it's been mentioned a few times the substrate was clayey sand. She was by the stream at first. The feet may have been wet and sand stuck to them.

LAL
9th February 2006, 05:01 AM
There is the possibility that if they do prove bigfoot exists, they know their game is also over, because real science will take over at that point.

Pursuit after a recent close encounter could lead you to where they live, it could lead you to scat, it could lead you to actual hairs from the creature, etc.

It could force the beastie to make a mistake in your favor. Maybe you would force it into an area it wouldn't normally visit. Perhaps it would be forced into contact with other people who would also witness it and corroborate your story of the pursuit.

The fact that the evidence you gathered was from a pursuit would give it more weight than evidence you just happened to stumble across in the woods. Even the tracks would have more weight as evidence.

Assuming you actually saw what you believed to be a bigfoot and tracked it and came up with evidence during the tracking. I would give such evidence greater weight.

Could someone please remind Bill that hair was found in the imprint and scat and possible prints were found in the area? With no clue about which way the animal went, exactly where would one start looking for more hair, scat and possible prints? Why would hair scat and possible prints have more weight if found in a fruitless pursuit? Are we certain no one searched the area looking for more evidence?

RayG
9th February 2006, 05:56 AM
(Check out what happens when you click on the photos.)

Ummm... nothing? Which photos do you mean?

So the crippled footprints of 1969 had set in motion a chain of events that went full circle and arrived at nothing...

Exactly what I quoted a dozen posts or so ago.

The only link of interest that I hadn't seen before was this one, though the information it contains is certainly not new:

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/news.php

RayG

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 06:33 AM
So again I say that anything that has the stink of these hoaxers anywhere near it, should be thrown out.

How can anyone who is serious about bigfoot have anything to do with these folks? How can they have anything to do with any "evidence" that they are associated with? How could Krantz and Meldrum have anything to do with such "evidence"?

I just can't understand it.

There is no way science is going to accept such evidence, and it should not.

I repeat, it should not.

Bossburg cripple foot, Walla Walla half foot, etc., are worthless to science.

RayG
9th February 2006, 06:50 AM
Could someone please remind Bill that hair was found in the imprint and scat and possible prints were found in the area?

LAL, I can only assume you're talking about the Skookum cast. Here's a couple of those 'possible prints' found in the area.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/images/LogPrint.jpg
17-inch Impression in Log found by Rick Noll. NOTE: Noll's bootprint is visible to the left of the impression. Photo by Rick Noll.

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/images/LoggingRoadPrint.jpg
Possible print found on logging road near screams.Photo by Rick Noll.

As I said over here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&p=238078&#entry238078) on the BFF:

No mention on the BFRO website of clearly identifiable squatch prints/tracks.

"Upon reaching the top of the hill, the group discussed the tracks. It was the general concensus that they were inconclusive, but definitely interesting."

Wednesday, September 20th: "...three potential Sasquatch tracks in different areas."

Thursday, September 21st: "No definitive tracks were found..."

Friday, September 22nd: Skookum cast found sometime near 0900am, but no discernable footprints. "The marks it did leave are much less distinct than footprints...."

Saturday, September 23rd: "No fresh tracks of large wildlife present..."

Your assertion that "Richard Noll found tracks on day four that were 24 -36 hours old."
http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayfour.asp

seems to be wishful-thinking on your part. Five different people (Noll, Randles, Fish, Lemley, and Lee) looked at the tracks. Their consensus? Inconclusive.

Bottom line - no clear footprints were ever found, and no sighting occurred.

With no clue about which way the animal went, exactly where would one start looking for more hair, scat and possible prints? Why would hair scat and possible prints have more weight if found in a fruitless pursuit? Are we certain no one searched the area looking for more evidence?

Basically, the entire expedition came to a screeching halt so they could cast the buttprint, which amounted to even less evidence than a clear footprint. After casting the squatchbutt and returning it to camp, this is the action the expedition took:

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm
After returning to camp, Randles, Fish and Noll decided to head out for Hood River again to obtain a car battery for Noll. The rest of the group remained at camp, discussing the day's discovery. Randles, Fish and Noll returned at around 11 PM. Some more fruit and peanuts were placed at the mud wallow, in an attempt to obtain more track evidence. A combination of fatigue and high winds won out over the remaining researchers, and so everyone retired to their tents at a relatively early hour. No vocalizations or other disturbances were noted that night.

It's a little hard to look for further evidence if everyone remains at camp.

Then, the following morning -- "Dismantling camp began immediately after breakfast." http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayeight.htm

So they found the imprint, made the cast, sat around camp, and then went home right after breakfast next morning. Doesn't sound like much of a concentrated effort to procure any further evidence.

LAL, your wishing the Skookum cast to be a real buttcast of squatch won't make it real.

If the cast "constitutes significant and compelling new evidence", it's puzzling why nothing seems to have been submitted to Nature or any other scientific journals. Have you asked Dr. Meldrum about this lack of follow-up in scientific journals? Would it have anything to do with him not finding the cast as compelling as he once thought?

And what exactly were the results of the tests conducted on the hair and chewed apple? Tests were conducted weren't they?

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/dayseven.htm
There were several hairs apparent in the impression, along with a few bits of chewed apple. Randles and Bambenek set about collecting these bits of evidence with sterile tweezers, and placed them into containers for storage.

RayG

Skeptical Greg
9th February 2006, 07:09 AM
And what exactly were the results of the tests conducted on the hair and chewed apple? Tests were conducted weren't they?



RayG I believe some ( all ? )of the hair was found to be elk ( imagine that ).. ( we have discussed this before ) No DNA was found on the apple..
I don't want to bother looking this up, but you can be sure, that if ' unknown primate ' hair, or ' unknown primate DNA ' had been found, we would be getting three servings a day...

I would suggest that ' compelling ' evidence would have caught some scientist's attention in 5 years... Chirp. Chirp.

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 07:48 AM
Yeah, no DNA on the apple. None. As if it weren't chewed by any animal, or chewed by an animal that doesn't leave DNA when it chews on food. A bird?

We know they took hair and saliva samples:

DNA expert Dr. Craig Newton from BC Research in Canada attempts to extract DNA from hair samples and saliva taken from the Skookum Cast site.

I mean, if footprints were found in the area of the skookum cast, then I would think they would give you a direction for pursuit.

If you wanted to follow the elk, there were clear prints for that.

If people have to be told what they are looking at, and have to have explanations to see it, how good can it be as evidence?

There were no bigfoot hairs found with the skookum cast as far as I know, even though the BFRO claims that Fahrenbach id'd a single skookum hair as sasquatch hair:

Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.”

Fahrenbach cannot do any such thing, of course. What that means is they found another hair they could not identify. Which they have "matched" to other hairs they could not identify. Which means absolutely nothing.

That's whay they have quotes around the word sasquatch.

Hey, I just noticed that the BFRO says Patty weighs over 1,000 pounds and that there is a consensus on that...

After the incident investigators went to the scene and measured the tracks left behind by the figure. The track measurements were later compared to the figure's feet visible in the footage. This allowed for various other measurements and calculations of body mass and weight of the figure. Those calculations consistently add up to over 1,000 pounds.

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 07:52 AM
DNA expert Dr. Craig Newton from BC Research in Canada attempts to extract DNA from hair samples and saliva taken from the Skookum Cast site.

If Fahrenbach only found a single "sasquatch" hair, then what "hair samples" is Craig testing for DNA in LMS? All of the hair save one was already identified, so there can only be one hair left to be checked.

RayG
9th February 2006, 07:56 AM
I believe some ( all ? )of the hair was found to be elk.. ( we have discussed this before ) No DNA was found on the apple..

Sorry, forgot to surround my query with <sarcasm> indicators. It was meant to get LAL to actually look at the results, not to confirm whether they had been done. My bad.

I don't want to bother looking this up, but you can be sure, that if ' unknown primate ' hair, or ' unknown primate DNA ' had been found, we would be getting three servings a day...

Even if nothing was proven to come from a squatch, it still gets presented as though it was, ("hair was found in the imprint and scat and possible prints were found in the area.")

I would suggest that ' compelling ' evidence would have caught some scientist's attention in 5 years... Chirp. Chirp.

Not many scientists have even looked at the cast in those 5 years. There was some kerfuffle over on the BFF about whether access was being granted to selective scientists or not, but still, five years later... tick...tick...tick...

Further links on the BFF regarding the Skookum cast:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2645&view=findpost&p=56610
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0

RayG

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 08:27 AM
The answer to my own question from Noll. So the samples have been tested more than once and in different ways. Still nothing unusual identified. So now we have foot lounging around in the mud and chewing on apples and leaving nothing behind, except possibly a single hair fragment.

And his nut prints, of course....


5. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach was only given one set of hair samples collected from the imprint site. The other samples will be used for different types of testing. We divided the samples (Hair and apple) this way because we did not want anything to get lost and if it did we would have a backup.

William Parcher
9th February 2006, 10:53 AM
I think it's been mentioned a few times the substrate was clayey sand. She was by the stream at first. The feet may have been wet and sand stuck to them.

Right. Everyone seems to agree that the substrate at Bluff Creek was a "clayey sand". It may have clung to the feet of a Bigfoot or somebody in a Bigfoot costume. When I look at the various still frames from the PGF, I do not see that "clinging substrate" might be causing any difficulty in determining the foot/sole shape.

Here is "Paddlefoot" again. I'm sorry that I cannot extract the single image that shows this foot and am forced to post the whole 4-frame group...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1101237919.gif

Here is "Blockfoot" (again). Please also note the "somewhat compact", "cupped" right hand...

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/040.jpg

Skeptical Greg
9th February 2006, 11:08 AM
The answer to my own question from Noll. So the samples have been tested more than once and in different ways. Still nothing unusual identified. So now we have foot lounging around in the mud and chewing on apples and leaving nothing behind, except possibly a single hair fragment.

And his nut prints, of course....


Every time I review the Skookum expedtion, it cracks me up..
http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

If these animals have been avoiding confrontations with humans for thousands of years, might this behavior -- avoidance of leaving distinctive footprints -- be an ancient survival strategy?

Right.. It looks like after thousands of years they are not very good at ' not leaving distinctive footprints ', since that is the most persistant evidence.

Also ' the avoidance of leaving distinctive footprints ' doesn't seem to be a necessary skill that would have been reinforced over thousands of years, since none have been sucessfully hunted, in spite of the thousands of footprints that have been left...

Credulosity at it's best.....

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 11:27 AM
Still frames from Patty3.mov showing the very dark front part of Patty's left foot.

The bottom one is the opening frame, and the top one is a few frames later.

I don't know what that thing is that appears to be dangling underneath her right knee. It travels with Patty, whatever it might be.

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 11:40 AM
It's probably just an artifact, but it does move with Patty for several frames.

I circled the blob I am talking about. :D

William Parcher
9th February 2006, 11:45 AM
Heironimus was wearing flat-soled "clown feet" that were part of the Bigfoot costume. He described them as being like house slippers.

Correa Neto
9th February 2006, 11:52 AM
Right. Everyone seems to agree that the substrate at Bluff Creek was a "clayey sand". It may have clung to the feet of a Bigfoot or somebody in a Bigfoot costume. When I look at the various still frames from the PGF, I do not see that "clinging substrate" might be causing any difficulty in determining the foot/sole shape.

...snip...

Whoever thinks wet clay, mud or sand would stick to a foot in such an homogeneous way never actually walked barefeet over a river bank...

BTW, with so many hits and links to his article, I wonder if Meldrum is not lurking at JREF. And if he is, I really would like to hear his opinions.

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 07:01 PM
Transcription of Dr. Krantz's apearance on Arthur C. Clarks Mysterious Universe. 1980
This is a 17" track that was picked up in north eastern Washington state, and this is what is evidentally a crippled individual, because here we have two tracks of the same individual, you're looking at the bottom of the feet, and this right foot is crippled. It is distorted lenght wise, bent, missing one toe, and most critically the two buldges on the outside of the foot, they represent spaces between bones, and if this had been just a gigantic human foot, or some kind of fake like that, these buldges and these bone spaces should have been set farther back. The fact of where they are indicates that this is a foot designed with diferrent leverage; longer heal, shorter forepart. Which is exactaly what would have to be done to make a foot that would lift an 800 pound animal.

So Krantz thought that a fake crippled foot would simply have looked a little bit different? A faker would have known to make the foot, but he would have had the bulges in the wrong place?

Talk about rationalization....

A faker could indeed have faked a skew foot, but Krantz would have spotted a fake skew foot...

LTC8K6
9th February 2006, 07:09 PM
Chilcutt states that there are human fingerprints on the Elkins creek cast along with Bigfoot dermal ridges, attributing the human ridges to accidents by the cast maker. Below we have a picture of a human fingerprint on a bigfoot cast.

Are there any casts which do not have human dermal ridges along with the bigfoot dermal ridges?

http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/footprints/dermal01.jpg

tube
9th February 2006, 10:27 PM
Chilcutt states that there are human fingerprints on the Elkins creek cast along with Bigfoot dermal ridges, attributing the human ridges to accidents by the cast maker. Below we have a picture of a human fingerprint on a bigfoot cast.

Are there any casts which do not have human dermal ridges along with the bigfoot dermal ridges?

http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/footprints/dermal01.jpg

I'm not sure I've seen that photo before. I think that's a photo of Paul Freeman's "Mill Creek" cast. Michael Dennett let me photograph and examine with a loupe a copy of that cast made by Krantz himself. Indeed the "Mill Creek" cast has dermals all over the toes. They certainly look to me like human dermals and that was also the conclusion Chilcutt came to.

I'm still unclear about the notion of "accidental" dermals impressed into a cast. Does that mean that someone impressed their own fingers into the track before it was cast or that someone impressed their fingerprints into a still curing cast? I doubt the latter, because if a cast is cured enough to lift it out of the track without breaking it, it is too hard to be impressed by one's fingers. I must qualify this by saying I have not tested this specifically, so it's more like I'm doubtfull.

I've seen pictures of the "Elkins" cast surface textures from Georgia, I don't know what to make of it. I wouldn't hazard an opinion without looking at the cast itself.

I believe Paul Freeman's "Wrinkle Foot" cast has no human dermals.

Bob Titmus cast a track in Hyampom California way back in the early 1960's that I believe is alleged to contain dermals; I never got a chance to ask Meldrum of Chilcutt about this one.

The Skookum cast is claimed to show both felxion creases and friction ridge skin on the feature that is claimed to be a heel. Chilcutt showed me a copy of this "heel" feature. It does indeed contain textures which resemble flexion creases. It would be prudent to run tests on soil samples taken from the Skookum cast site to determine what the potential for holding texture detail is. I have not personally examined soil samples from the site.

Z
9th February 2006, 10:44 PM
I was a sideshow performer, not a carny. I was one of the founding members of the Jim Rose sideshow, which started in Seattle in the early 1990's. A book about our adventures by Jan Gregor is entitled Circus of the Scars.

"Mark" is old time carny slang for an unsophisticated customer. Our audience was more of the "modern primitive" type.

I've seen Bobby Reynolds' "100 pound rat" exhibit in Coney Island, it was actually a 100 pound capybara.

After reading Greg Long's book, I see many similarities between Jim Rose and Roger Patterson...

Kewl!

Jim Rose voices 'Simon' on SSX Tricky for PS2 (and probably other places)... I've started taking an interest in this colorful guy!

LAL
10th February 2006, 03:52 AM
Ummm... nothing? Which photos do you mean?


You mean the message they'll toss your arse out of here if you keep that up didn't come up for you?


Exactly what I quoted a dozen posts or so ago.


The casts are still considered good evidence by some. If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

Each piece of evidence has to be examined objectively. Some of the handprints are pretty interesting, too.


The only link of interest that I hadn't seen before was this one, though the information it contains is certainly not new:

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/html/news.php

RayG

I was looking for that one and couldn't find it. Thanks for posting it.

LAL
10th February 2006, 04:52 AM
Sorry, forgot to surround my query with <sarcasm> indicators. It was meant to get LAL to actually look at the results, not to confirm whether they had been done. My bad.



Even if nothing was proven to come from a squatch, it still gets presented as though it was, ("hair was found in the imprint and scat and possible prints were found in the area.")



Not many scientists have even looked at the cast in those 5 years. There was some kerfuffle over on the BFF about whether access was being granted to selective scientists or not, but still, five years later... tick...tick...tick...

Further links on the BFF regarding the Skookum cast:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2645&view=findpost&p=56610
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&st=0

RayG

My point was that these things had already been found by the last day of the expedition. What good would it have done to gather more of the same during a "hot pursuit"? Sceptics would dismiss the evidence afterward as easlily as any found before. I'm not sure when the scat was found. The hair was afterward, of course, and found in the imprint. It was too close to human to rule out contamination, but the physical examination indicated it wasn't human. Even Sarmiento said that it wasn't human (on LMS). It had never been cut.


As I've mentioned a gazillion times, I used to live in Skamania County. Sightings there were almost common. The seven mile long double trackway was probably what convinced me in the first place. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn about the Skookum Cast after I moved to NC and very pleased the imprint was found miles northeast of where I lived instead of in some area I know little about. It's not a great reach for me to think the imprint shows what it seems to show, and all other possiblities, including elk, seem to have been ruled out. There were experiments done.

If members of the team had been up all night and actually seen the animal sit down, would their testimony make any difference, or would they just be dismissed as liars? Too bad someone didn't set a bear trap under the mud where the animal was going to sit down. There might have been a sizeable chunk of DNA left behind. What an appalling lack of foresite! And they should have brought a large cage and some elephant guns, of course, and more than enough cameras.............a full scale scientific expedition would have thought of all this, of course, and never mind the cost

It would be interesting to see a list of all qualified scientists who have actually bothered to look at the cast and their conclusions. Dr. Daegling been there yet?

LAL
10th February 2006, 05:15 AM
Whoever thinks wet clay, mud or sand would stick to a foot in such an homogeneous way never actually walked barefeet over a river bank...

BTW, with so many hits and links to his article, I wonder if Meldrum is not lurking at JREF. And if he is, I really would like to hear his opinions.

I doubt he has time. He does pop up in Coleman's Yahoo group sometimes. Last time he was looking for a citation, presumably for the book he's writing.

Damp sand/clay could be picked up, dropped, picked up again. She was on a sandbar, mostly, wasn't she? That is no longer there.........

M.K.Davis
10th February 2006, 06:15 AM
OK, that makes sense. This is called "motion blur" correct? Since the foot is moving more quickly that the rest of the body it blurs more, correct?
Well, it may be a combination of things. The foot is also lighter and exposes, or overexposes more quickly. In other words the lighter color under the foot tends to "wash out". This combined with the swift movement of the foot likely caused the squarish image of the foot. The other alternative is that someone produced an unprecedentedly good suit and then put a block of a foot on it. M.K.

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 07:16 AM
Well, we still have an odd looking foot even in a decent shot. The foot that is relatively still at the end of it's movement is all blocky. The foot that is still moving upwards has all the detail. Curious. The feet look completely different to me, and within just a frame or three, too.

No detail, blockfoot:
http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

Details, perfectfoot:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/017.jpg

Skeptical Greg
10th February 2006, 07:23 AM
The other alternative is that someone produced an unprecedentedly good suit and then put a block of a foot on it. M.K.


What unprecedentedly good suit are you referring to ?

Skeptical Greg
10th February 2006, 07:55 AM
My point was that these things had already been found by the last day of the expedition. What good would it have done to gather more of the same during a "hot pursuit"? Sceptics would dismiss the evidence afterward as easlily as any found before.

Yes, I'm sure it would have been easily dismissed. Why ?
Because it's easy to dismiss ..
Give us something that is not easy to dismiss..



I'm not sure when the scat was found. The hair was afterward, of course, and found in the imprint. It was too close to human to rule out contamination, but the physical examination indicated it wasn't human. Even Sarmiento said that it wasn't human (on LMS). It had never been cut.
Your point? ( with regard to this being evidence that we have a Sas butt print ? )


As I've mentioned a gazillion times, I used to live in Skamania County. Sightings there were almost common. The seven mile long double trackway was probably what convinced me in the first place. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn about the Skookum Cast after I moved to NC and very pleased the imprint was found miles northeast of where I lived instead of in some area I know little about. It's not a great reach for me to think the imprint shows what it seems to show, and all other possiblities, including elk, seem to have been ruled out.

Ruled out by whom? How did they rule out elk, when elk hair was indeed identified ?

And how does you having lived in the area, add any weight to the validity of the cast?

WTF is ' almost ' common. :confused:





There were experiments done.

If members of the team had been up all night and actually seen the animal sit down, would their testimony make any difference, or would they just be dismissed as liars?
Yes, unless they offered some verifiable evidence.


Too bad someone didn't set a bear trap under the mud where the animal was going to sit down. There might have been a sizeable chunk of DNA left behind. What an appalling lack of foresite! And they should have brought a large cage and some elephant guns, of course, and more than enough cameras.............a full scale scientific expedition would have thought of all this, of course, and never mind the cost..

Yeah, a trap would have worked.. One working camera is more than enough ..



It would be interesting to see a list of all qualified scientists who have actually bothered to look at the cast and their conclusions. Dr. Daegling been there yet?



I don't think it would be interesting at all.
Do you really think if Noll had such a list, that supported his beliefs, he wouldn't be all in our faces with it ?

Skeptical Greg
10th February 2006, 07:59 AM
Well, we still have an odd looking foot even in a decent shot. The foot that is relatively still at the end of it's movement is all blocky. The foot that is still moving upwards has all the detail. Curious. The feet look completely different to me, and within just a frame or three, too.

No detail, blockfoot:
http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

Details, perfectfoot:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/017.jpg What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 08:11 AM
The Skookum cast is interesting, but useless.

No one can tell what it is with any certainty at all.

Some people believe stongly that it was left by a bigfoot, but that means very little.

There is no actual useable evidence to show that it was left by a bigfoot.

None.

Now, if we had some corroboration....like what might have come to light if this particular bigfoot had been followed.

Or if we had some primate hairs, or DNA (we don't have either no matter how many times it is claimed we do) it would certainly be harder for me to say the print could not be connected to bigfoot.

Regarding primate hairs, though....
I notice no one taking precautions against their own hair falling into the mud while making the skookum cast. People are leaning right over the mud and whatever is on their clothes and their bodies is falling all over the print and contaminating it. We know that someone actually stepped in the mud, as well.

Hitch
10th February 2006, 08:12 AM
What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...
Because a quick and dirty analysis of those two frames and using a foot length of 14.5 inches gives a figure less than 5' 6" tall... and that can't possibly be right.


...can it?

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 08:20 AM
Yeah, Diogenes. When I do a quick comparison on my monitor, it looks like Patty's arm is 2 foot-lengths long and about evenly divided at the elbow. That would match a human arm.

Hitch
10th February 2006, 08:24 AM
Yeah, Diogenes. When I do a quick comparison on my monitor, it looks like Patty's arm is 2 foot-lengths long and about evenly divided at the elbow. That would match a human arm.
That can't be right, either.


...can it?

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 08:26 AM
I don't know, Hitch. I realize that I don't really know what I am doing with the comparisons.

The more I study, the more I see a man walking stoop shouldered in a furry suit.....

Why is Patty looking for money on the ground, anyway.....?

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 08:29 AM
Patty's shoulders just don't seem all that wide either, if her foot is 14.5" long.

Maybe it's just me?

Hitch
10th February 2006, 08:37 AM
Patty's shoulders just don't seem all that wide either, if her foot is 14.5" long.

Maybe it's just me?
Or maybe it really is just a guy in a costume.


...nah, that's just crazy talk.

William Parcher
10th February 2006, 09:02 AM
What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

The height estimate was attempted using this frame over on BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6569). I believe the foot size of 14.5" is taken from the tracks, which we don't really know came from the subject itself.

http://www.zenors.com/Bigfoot/Pictures/Pic1foot4.jpg

Orthoptera
10th February 2006, 09:48 AM
What I don't understand is, why is there any question about the subject's height ?

That foot is exactly 14.5 inches, right ?

Someone explain to me why we can't use that foot to come up with a very close height estimate ...

You are all out: Glickman's 1998 NASI report definitively measures the Patterson subject as 7' 3.5", with a weight of 1957 lbs. That's right, 1 ton. Since no human could walk in a suit that heavy, it can't be a person in a suit. Case closed.:boggled:

ETA: And yes she insists on the half-inch: it's a sasquatch thing.

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 10:01 AM
Yeah, no hoaxer could carry an extra 1800 pounds and walk like that..... :D

1 ton on each foot crashing down.... (and only on half a foot sometimes according to Meldrum)

Imagine that running...

You'd hear Patty coming a mile away.

I have to wonder why anyone would even bother to write such a ridiculous thing.

Huntster
10th February 2006, 10:49 AM
....I am confused by your contention that it is somehow prejudiced and unscientific to think Dfoots work calls into question the validity of the P&G film.....

That isn't my contention. Dfoot is building a suit. When finished to his satisfaction, he promised to videotape it in action. I'm waiting for that before rendering judgement.

I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

...What he has accomplished is to seriously undermine two of the major tenets bigfoot advocates claim. (1) No one has ever come close to replicating the suit. (2) Materials where not available to patterson during the late 1960's.....

He has done neither yet. Again, I await seeing the suit in action.

...I am unaware of "putting the suit in motion" ever being one of Dfoot original goals, he seems to have stated "look what I have discovered and how I did it".....

He made his promise to put the suit in action over at the BFF.

...I am not sure why anyone has to refrain from judgement, he built a suit it looks pretty damn good he explained how he made it using 1960s materials.....

The PG film is showing motion, which can reveal weaknesses in a man-made suit. It can also show muscle movement, foot flex, etc.

It is very reasonable to withhold judgement of Dfoots suit until it is seen in motion like the PG film subject.

We don't want to pre-judge, do we?

...and exactly what would a dog do if he had square ***.?

If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.

Arkan_Wolfshade
10th February 2006, 10:56 AM
You are all out: Glickman's 1998 NASI report definitively measures the Patterson subject as 7' 3.5", with a weight of 1957 lbs. That's right, 1 ton. Since no human could walk in a suit that heavy, it can't be a person in a suit. Case closed.:boggled:

ETA: And yes she insists on the half-inch: it's a sasquatch thing.

Isn't Glickman's weight estimate based off of the body proportions? Given that male gorillas achieve ~180 lbs and gigantopithecus is guesstimated as ~600 lbs it would suggest to me that... costume stuffing doesn't weigh much. *shrug*

Hitch
10th February 2006, 11:48 AM
If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, canine fecal matter is rarely employed as construction material, so your hypothesis would seem to be somewhat flawed.

Dfoot
10th February 2006, 01:39 PM
[quote=Huntster;1436753]That isn't my contention. Dfoot is building a suit. When finished to his satisfaction, he promised to videotape it in action. I'm waiting for that before rendering judgement.

I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

The PG film is showing motion, which can reveal weaknesses in a man-made suit. It can also show muscle movement, foot flex, etc.

It is very reasonable to withhold judgement of Dfoots suit until it is seen in motion like the PG film subject.


HUNTSTER-- I've been too busy to bother with any suit-making (other than the one I built over Halloween weekend). When I get a break in the schedule I will give it a try though.

The PG film shows all of the flaws that ONLY a suit produces. The back of the neck separates from the head/helmet when Heironimus turns. The thigh pad juts out as he bends forward. The seams around the butt pads that are an exact match for those used by John Chambers and others are evident. Not to mention the floppy foot connected to the suit that slides back and forth and the shoulder pad that runs straight across the shoulder instead of tapering down as a normal muscle would.

Here's Andy Lau running in his muscle suit. It's made of latex rubber - just like the rubber suit worn by the "Gorn" character on STAR TREK in 1966.

Patterson was a much better artist than me. He also sculpted Bigfoot busts. He also built all sorts of wagons and inventions. I can do none of those things. Since Roger rented an ape suit from Hollywood in 1961 he could have easily figured out how to make this. Yet... it probably was made by someone like Chambers. It's only a modified gorilla suit circa 1967.

That's the truth of it - whether I build an "Andy Lau special" or a Patterson caveman/gorilla. The guy was pulling a hoax for his own reasons and he did make a nice chunk of cash out of the deal along with his brother in law.

The half dressed gorillas at the bottom also use helmet/heads that tuck inside the neck. They are just not separating as happened with Heironimus that day.

- Dfoot

tube
10th February 2006, 01:57 PM
Well, it may be a combination of things. The foot is also lighter and exposes, or overexposes more quickly. In other words the lighter color under the foot tends to "wash out". This combined with the swift movement of the foot likely caused the squarish image of the foot. The other alternative is that someone produced an unprecedentedly good suit and then put a block of a foot on it. M.K.

If this combination of things is indeed responsible for creating the illusion of a square heel then how can you eliminate these factors from being responsible for other features, like the alleged "mid foot flexibility"?

If a feature as coarse as a square heel is a photographic illusion then how can you be sure that much finer features such as boils, scars, and eye infections are not photographic illusions too?

Marlon, have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

RayG
10th February 2006, 02:55 PM
You mean the message they'll toss your arse out of here if you keep that up didn't come up for you?

Nope. I even went back and tried both left/right-clicking on the images -- nothing happened. (Probably 'cause I've got Adblock running on my Firefox)

The casts are still considered good evidence by some.

Mostly those that refuse to see Marx for the hoaxter/huckster that he was.

If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

That only works if you start with a real ruby.

Each piece of evidence has to be examined objectively.

No argument from me on that.

Some of the handprints are pretty interesting, too.

But that doesn't make them squatch prints. Sorry, if someone is associated with hoaxing, anything they produce should be rendered useless.

RayG

Correa Neto
10th February 2006, 03:26 PM
It's rather useless to discuss PGF with some footers. They stick to what can only be defined as false beliefs, such as how hard it would be to make a Patty suit even with today's FX tech, etc. etc. etc.

Dfoot touched an issue that has already been debated in one of the bigfoot threads over here. It was claimed by footers that Star Trek was a show with a decent budget, and the show has not managed to produce anything like Patty.

Pictures of the gorn, mugato (albino gorilla with horns) and salt vampire suits were shown. It is also known to any Star Trek fan that the original series was a low-budget TV series, quite often re-using props. And still, footers stick to their lore...

M.K.Davis
10th February 2006, 04:15 PM
If this combination of things is indeed responsible for creating the illusion of a square heel then how can you eliminate these factors from being responsible for other features, like the alleged "mid foot flexibility"?

If a feature as coarse as a square heel is a photographic illusion then how can you be sure that much finer features such as boils, scars, and eye infections are not photographic illusions too?

Marlon, have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?
Well, Matt, do you think that the dog's eye is an illusion? Certainly the head has been stretched and skewed. You are using much too weighty a word when you say assertion. I say what I think. When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. I'd like to think that I can talk about them, without being stoned if I'm wrong. I'm looking for answers like everyone else. I can change course in mid stream if need be. Here's and example. ://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/honey.htm Go here and view a video that led me down an entirely different road than what I expected. M.K.

M.K.Davis
10th February 2006, 04:20 PM
Well, Matt, do you think that the dog's eye is an illusion? Certainly the head has been stretched and skewed. You are using much too weighty a word when you say assertion. I say what I think. When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. I'd like to think that I can talk about them, without being stoned if I'm wrong. I'm looking for answers like everyone else. I can change course in mid stream if need be. Here's and example. ://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/honey.htm Go here and view a video that led me down an entirely different road than what I expected. M.K.
They won't let me post a URL until I have posted 15 times. ( surely I must be getting close ). So add http to the front of the previous address. M.K.

RayG
10th February 2006, 05:03 PM
My point was that these things had already been found by the last day of the expedition. What good would it have done to gather more of the same during a "hot pursuit"?

Seems like a more logical plan of action than what they DID do.

Sceptics would dismiss the evidence afterward as easlily as any found before. I'm not sure when the scat was found. The hair was afterward, of course, and found in the imprint. It was too close to human to rule out contamination, but the physical examination indicated it wasn't human. Even Sarmiento said that it wasn't human (on LMS). It had never been cut.

Too close to human to rule out contamination, but Sarmiento claims it wasn't human. Who did the actual hair analysis?

As I've mentioned a gazillion times, I used to live in Skamania County.

And I've lived here (454 miles from North Pole) but it doesn't make me an arctic authority.

http://www.ecosolutions.com/orgpics/155-AlertArial2.jpg

It's not a great reach for me to think the imprint shows what it seems to show, and all other possiblities, including elk, seem to have been ruled out. There were experiments done.

So when did they drag in elk, deer, coyote and bear for print comparisons?

Kinda reminds me of this:

http://www.hagencartoons.com/cartoon336.gif

If members of the team had been up all night and actually seen the animal sit down, would their testimony make any difference, or would they just be dismissed as liars?

People are mistaken all the time, it doesn't make them liars. Now, if they'd brought back an actual squatch, all the skeptics would be eating crow. (well, not really, because skeptics aren't saying squatch CANNOT exist)

Too bad someone didn't set a bear trap under the mud where the animal was going to sit down.

Too bad they broke camp just when they were |__| that close.

There might have been a sizeable chunk of DNA left behind.

Would have certainly provided better evidence.

What an appalling lack of foresite! And they should have brought a large cage and some elephant guns, of course, and more than enough cameras.............a full scale scientific expedition would have thought of all this, of course, and never mind the cost

Wasn't this a BFRO expedition? Don't BFRO expeditions almost always have some sort of encounter? Doesn't the BFRO claim to be a scientific organization?

It would be interesting to see a list of all qualified scientists who have actually bothered to look at the cast and their conclusions. Dr. Daegling been there yet?

It's a very short list.

RayG

RayG
10th February 2006, 05:06 PM
The Skookum cast is interesting, but useless.

No one can tell what it is with any certainty at all.

Some people believe stongly that it was left by a bigfoot, but that means very little.

There is no actual useable evidence to show that it was left by a bigfoot.

None.

Now, if we had some corroboration....like what might have come to light if this particular bigfoot had been followed.

Or if we had some primate hairs, or DNA (we don't have either no matter how many times it is claimed we do) it would certainly be harder for me to say the print could not be connected to bigfoot.

Regarding primate hairs, though....
I notice no one taking precautions against their own hair falling into the mud while making the skookum cast. People are leaning right over the mud and whatever is on their clothes and their bodies is falling all over the print and contaminating it. We know that someone actually stepped in the mud, as well.

I'd have to disagree. I haven't found the Skookum cast 'interesting' for a very long time.

Even Meldrum no longer finds it as compelling as he once did.

RayG

RayG
10th February 2006, 05:25 PM
I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

We shouldn't underestimate human ingenuity either. Maybe I shouldn't, but I tend to lump people who claim that Patterson couldn't possibly have pulled off a hoax, in with those that claim THIS couldn't have been created by humans:

http://www.circlemakers.org/Img/silbury_hill_04.jpg

We don't want to pre-judge, do we?

No, but we also shouldn't pass Patterson off as a unimaginative rodeo rider.

If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.

You know what they say about sticking a round peg in a square hole... or is that square peg in a round hole?? :D

RayG

tube
10th February 2006, 07:03 PM
[QUOTE=primateer;1437435] When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. [QUOTE]

I'm somewhat surprised you are characterizing your statements as "possibilities", that are "dialogue and nothing more", because that sounds to me like "fiction" and not science.

Why should we take your "possibilities" more seriously than, say, Eric Beckjord's notion that we can see a tampon string coming out of "Patty"?

Why should I take the "possibility" of scars, boils, and eye infections more seriously than Beckjord's wormhole traveling shape-shifter?

You did not answer my question in your last post either: Have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

bruto
10th February 2006, 07:24 PM
LAL says...If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

Here is a part of the problem in a nutshell. While what you say is true, it is predicated on your knowing in a very real and presumably testable way that the original ruby was real. But how about putting it a different way?

If I sold you what looks convincingly like a large ruby, and you had accepted it on faith without assaying it, and then later I were discovered selling fabrications, are you suggesting that you would still believe your ruby genuine on faith and without more critical examination?

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 10:00 PM
Somewhere earlier in this thread or one of the others, I suggested that Beckjord's ideas more closely matched the "evidence" of bigfoot. :)

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 10:05 PM
Quoting myself:

Well, which is closer to matching all of the varied reports of sasquatch behaviors and abilities?

A - an unknown large bipedal hominid/primate

B - a shapeshifting interdimensional entity

I submit that B is the closer match.

LTC8K6
10th February 2006, 10:08 PM
LAL says...If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

The people who bought the fakes would certainly be suspicious of Lu's original ruby though, as would others. They would question the original discovery. They should question it.

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:08 PM
...I have to wonder why anyone would even bother to write such a ridiculous thing.

Well, tell us:

Why are you bothering with it?

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:09 PM
Unless I'm very much mistaken, canine fecal matter is rarely employed as construction material, so your hypothesis would seem to be somewhat flawed.

Many theories and ideologies have been "constructed" out of matter very much like canine fecal matter.

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:18 PM
[quote=Huntster;1436753]...been too busy to bother with any suit-making (other than the one I built over Halloween weekend). When I get a break in the schedule I will give it a try though....

I understand. I try to stay busy, too. I have way too much to do to even think about building a sasquatch suit.

Yet, I'm reading over and over and over again how easy it is.

I've seen photos of several that were submitted as the real thing, but were obvious hoaxes (like the Marx suit portrayed in this thread).

Even the BBC reproduction of the Patterson film was a joke.

There's a lot of talk about the Patterson suit. I've yet to see it's match; even from Hollywood.

...The PG film shows all of the flaws that ONLY a suit produces. The back of the neck separates from the head/helmet when Heironimus turns....

Funny, I haven't seen that.

...The thigh pad juts out as he bends forward....

Didn't notice that, either.

...The seams around the butt pads that are an exact match for those used by John Chambers...

Hmm. Didn't notice that, either.

...Not to mention the floppy foot connected to the suit that slides back and forth and the shoulder pad that runs straight across the shoulder instead of tapering down as a normal muscle would....

Well. With so many flaws, the suit is getting even easier to build, isn't it?

So.........I'm very patient. I'll wait.

Let's see someone do it again.

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:19 PM
It's rather useless to discuss PGF with some footers. They stick to what can only be defined as false beliefs, such as how hard it would be to make a Patty suit even with today's FX tech, etc. etc. etc....

So, again, if it is so easy to do, how come it hasn't been reproduced?

Why did the BBC attempt to reproduce the PG film turn into such a joke?

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:23 PM
We shouldn't underestimate human ingenuity either. Maybe I shouldn't, but I tend to lump people who claim that Patterson couldn't possibly have pulled off a hoax, in with those that claim THIS couldn't have been created by humans:...

How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

Huntster
10th February 2006, 11:27 PM
Somewhere earlier in this thread or one of the others, I suggested that Beckjord's ideas more closely matched the "evidence" of bigfoot. :)

Then perhap's you're discussing this phenomenon at the wrong forum.

Go here (http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/). Maybe you'll feel more at home.

Starrman
11th February 2006, 05:22 AM
How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

I don't think I could have drawn a more apt comparison of the UFO and Bigfoot myths if I tried. The irony in it coming from you is priceless!

How many nickels do I owe you so far?

The answer to your question is 'yes' to many of the facets of UFO lore. Maybe not 'yes' to that particular circle, but yes, things like that happen all the time in UFOlogy...

M.K.Davis
11th February 2006, 06:22 AM
[QUOTE=primateer;1437435] When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. [QUOTE]

I'm somewhat surprised you are characterizing your statements as "possibilities", that are "dialogue and nothing more", because that sounds to me like "fiction" and not science.

Why should we take your "possibilities" more seriously than, say, Eric Beckjord's notion that we can see a tampon string coming out of "Patty"?

Why should I take the "possibility" of scars, boils, and eye infections more seriously than Beckjord's wormhole traveling shape-shifter?

You did not answer my question in your last post either: Have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

Let me ask you this. Did you assert that Don Monroe casted his own hand in the cave in Idaho, and that you could tell because you saw his thumb missing, and that you were going to expose him? M.K.

RayG
11th February 2006, 07:29 AM
How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

Bottom line, it WAS created by humans.

RayG

tube
11th February 2006, 07:59 AM
[QUOTE=tube;1437654][QUOTE=primateer;1437435] When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about.

Let me ask you this. Did you assert that Don Monroe casted his own hand in the cave in Idaho, and that you could tell because you saw his thumb missing, and that you were going to expose him? M.K.

Marlon; I must say, your willingness to "come on board" a forum that includes individuals who may not appreciate your ideas takes courage. But your unwillingness to answer direct, unambiguous questions is spineless.

Why are you resorting to counterattack? Are your claims not on solid ground?

Correa Neto
11th February 2006, 03:20 PM
So, again, if it is so easy to do, how come it hasn't been reproduced?

Why did the BBC attempt to reproduce the PG film turn into such a joke?

Such a joke?

To me, it looks more like a real bigfoot (if such a thing really exists) than Patty.

What about adimiting that Patty-like costumes can be -and were- made at least since the 40s?

And that there are many flaws in the reasonings that try to defend such monkey costumes could not have been created back in the 60's?

delphi_ote
11th February 2006, 03:33 PM
http://www.zenors.com/Bigfoot/Pictures/Pic1foot4.jpg

Looks to me like they started measuring from underground...

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 12:44 AM
http://us.share.geocities.com/abercrombiedrone/bf9.jpg

A high res frame from the P/G film. I haven't seen it before. Not sure what they were circling. Maybe it originated with Beckjord?

bruto
12th February 2006, 06:54 AM
http://us.share.geocities.com/abercrombiedrone/bf9.jpg

A high res frame from the P/G film. I haven't seen it before. Not sure what they were circling. Maybe it originated with Beckjord?

Why, it's Mr. Big and the kids, clear as day! But they missed Uncle George and cousin Ernie. Once you start circling, the others are obvious. The woods are full of them.

Huntster
12th February 2006, 08:47 AM
Such a joke?

To me, it looks more like a real bigfoot (if such a thing really exists) than Patty.....

For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th February 2006, 09:31 AM
Why, it's Mr. Big and the kids, clear as day! But they missed Uncle George and cousin Ernie. Once you start circling, the others are obvious. The woods are full of them.

Actually, I think that is what they are circling. There was a special on either Discovery or History channel a few years back and one of the interviewees was arguing that Patty's behavior was because their were offspring in the woods and she was drawing attention away from them, a la killdeer birds. I'm guessing this photo is supposed to be showing where they offspring are.

Correa Neto
12th February 2006, 10:22 AM
For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............

You can start your fun by showing me a real bigfoot and then comparing it with the fake ones (Patty and BBC´s).

BBC´s bigfoot has more in common with bigfoot renderings avaliable than Patty (fur color, body shape, etc.).

Now, the usual footer excuses will follow:
Sexual dimorphism, since Patty was a female, there are several different bigfeet species, etc. etc. etc.

Skeptical Greg
12th February 2006, 12:27 PM
For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............

For the record, I will say you have no proof it doesn't look like a real bigfoot, any more that the subject in PG.....


It's about time you had some fun.. We have been having lots of fun, for over 2,300 posts now..

William Parcher
12th February 2006, 02:38 PM
Everything would be different if somebody could conclusively show that Bigfoot is not a mythological creature.

Huntster
12th February 2006, 03:10 PM
.....BBC´s bigfoot has more in common with bigfoot renderings avaliable than Patty (fur color, body shape, etc.)......

Unbelievable.

The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. It has long flowing hair, usually done so by costumers to hide zippers and flaws.

While some sasquatch reports describe reddish and even very light colored fur, the vast majority of reports describe black or very dark fur.

The vast majority of reports describe a very husky, massive creature. I know of none that describe a "skinny" figure.

When I look at the BBC recreation I see the same type of figure that sasquatch hoaxers create.

When I look at the subject of the PG film I see a creature built like a bear; massive, heavy, and powerful.

It's difficult to imagine someone who claims to be of a scientific mind who is so prejudiced against a piece of evidence as to go to such lengths to try to discredit it.

Correa Neto
12th February 2006, 04:11 PM
Unbelievable.

Yeah, I agree. Its hard to belive that someone actually considers PGF a worthy piece of evidence favorable to bigfoot's existence as a real creature.

The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. ...snip...

AFAIK most bigfeet are not supposed to be black.
AFAIK they are supposed to have "T-shaped" torsos, something Patty has not, and BBC´s bigfoot has.
BBC's film also seems to have better detail than PGF.
Patty has a lot of "weird" anatomic features, not found in BBC's bigfoot.

When I look at the BBC recreation I see the same type of figure that sasquatch hoaxers create.

Yes, just like Patty.

When I look at the subject of the PG film I see a creature built like a bear; massive, heavy, and powerful.

I see someone wearing a costume, with a diaper-like butt.

It's difficult to imagine someone who claims to be of a scientific mind who is so prejudiced against a piece of evidence as to go to such lengths to try to discredit it.

First of all, prove that I am showing prejudice against PGF. And I don't need to try to discredit it. It's already discredited due to the many problems it has, already discussed here and at other places.

Prejudice what is shown by footers in respect to the people who point the weak spots in what they consider as undeniable evidence. Prejudice is what footers show when they close their eyes to the suspicious circunstances involved with what they consider "undeniable evidence", such as PGF, cripplefoot and the skookum cast.

Again, can you show us a real bigfoot, so we can compare it with Patty and BBC´s and see wich one looks more like the "real stuff"?

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 05:48 PM
Somebody should put a standing 6.5' tall bear in frame 352 to compare to Patty. I wonder if Patty will look as big?

Maybe that walking away frame would be better. 72?... the one with the perfect foot.

How about a defensive lineman from the period?

The BBC film was not an attempt to duplicate the suit, remember.

RayG
12th February 2006, 07:08 PM
Unbelievable.

The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. It has long flowing hair, usually done so by costumers to hide zippers and flaws.

While some sasquatch reports describe reddish and even very light colored fur, the vast majority of reports describe black or very dark fur.

The vast majority of reports describe a very husky, massive creature. I know of none that describe a "skinny" figure.

Here's one:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12542
March, 2002, New Mexico
"This was not what I expected to see at all. I would put it at about 7 feet tall, skinny, gray in color, arms past the knees, like looking at the back of a grinch head-pointy."

Here's another:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/roadkill.htm
January, 2002, Oregon
"Boydson says she was zooming around a corner on the freeway late one night and saw a "very, very skinny, 9 foot tall, hairy man" standing in the slow lane. She barely missed hitting the creature -- probably because it was so skinny. However, despite being super-thin, Boydson doesn't think the Sasquatch was bulimic because it looked as muscular as a well-toned athlete. However, Boydson admits her first thought when she saw how bony the Bigfoot looked was "Go eat something, Sasquatch!""

And another:

http://www.gcbro.com/NCrowan001.html
1988 or 1989, North Carolina
"It was skinny, five to six feet tall, and had straight reddish hair that flaired out a little at the hands and feet."

Still another:

http://www.gcbro.com/MIgenesee0001.html
October, 2005, Michigan
"Under one of the only street lights on that road, I saw a tall, lanky, black figure walking on two legs across the road. I stopped in mid-turn and stared, watching whatever it was. Even from that distance, I could tell it was tall. I would guesstimate around 7 or 8 feet tall, but I'm not sure. It looked to be very slender, with skinny legs and arms."

Yet another:

http://spacepub.com/users/data/bigfoot/geo/geo.htm
March, 1974, Georgia
"The creature was estimated to be seven foot tall, and quite skinny. It had wide hips, and its arms were almost to its knees. It also had what appeared to be a sagittal crest at the top of its head."

Still another:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/Panola2.html
December, 1996, Texas
"The body was very slender and head was basically round, not pointed like the bulk of Bigfoot sightings. There was no noticeable odor. It walked on two legs, had a very long stride."

Older reference:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/cb/1901.html
1948, Mad Lake near Leavenworth, WA
Saw thin, black-haired, 6-ft Bigfoot squatting on lake shore.

Another Oregon 'thin' bigfoot:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/journal/snowpeak0502502.php
March, 2002, Oregon
"I was walking along a clear cut above this ridge when I saw, I suppose the legend has it BigFoot. It was a creature or whatever you like to call it standing at about 8-9 feet tall with long dark brown hair covering it's body from head to toe. It was very thin and had one of the most horrific odors that I can't even begin to explain."

Another reference to 'skinny':

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=57504
"Sasquatches have been seen both with substantial girth as well as looking decidedly skinny."

So, it appears some bigfoot are built like basketball players and not football players.

RayG

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 07:18 PM
Yep, foot is often described as lanky/skinny.

I often wonder if Huntster and Lu are talking about the same bigfoot as the skeptics.

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 07:25 PM
Then again, bigfoot apparently is short/tall, long haired/short haired, stinky/not stinky, fat/skinny, light/heavy/unbelieveably heavy, has 8 different kinds of feet, and I am sure I forgot several variations....

RayG
12th February 2006, 07:32 PM
Then again, bigfoot apparently is short/tall, long haired/short haired, stinky/not stinky, fat/skinny, light/heavy/unbelieveably heavy, has 8 different kinds of feet, and I am sure I forgot several variations....

Read Coleman. :cool:

RayG

Skeptical Greg
12th February 2006, 07:40 PM
Lu posted this story over at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=296576


"Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've done better.' "So there you have it... We can all smile with relief that the Patterson footage is still the most convincing proof of our great folk legend's existence, and that it still has not been debunked. "I want that film to be real just as much as the next guy," Penikas said in conclusion."


So let me see if I get the point here..

Chambers jokes that he could have made a better costume than what he sees in the PGF...
This is somehow support for the existence of a North American primate...
And offered as proof that the PGF is not a hoax...

Not to mention it is proof of the existence of a ' great folk legend '...

Hey! I didn't need any proof of that...


Also, it was heart warming to hear that Penikas ' wants ' the film to be real..
Why, that puts him in the same camp as Dr. Jane..

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 08:08 PM
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1045

BFRO Class A report. Description mostly the opposite of Patty.

There was no associated odor with the creature. They described the hair as "dirty brown, tangled looking" and "messed up" (the father's words) and looking like it was "in dreads" (the son's description). Both witnesses said no facial details, such as eyes, ears , nose or mouth were visible due to the hair hanging down into its face. The father estimated the body hair to be about 8" long. The arms hung to below knee level. The father estimated the weight to be 300+ pounds and described the build as "bigger than the biggest football player", but not fat. Neither could see anything to indicate gender, the son assumed it was male. The father said the creature's stance was "very upright, not hunched over, almost at attention".

Both said that the creature quietly walked backwards until it came to the cedar where it turned and re-entered the thicket. The father described the creature's gait as being "just like a man".

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 08:33 PM
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/MullensRent2.jpg

Let's not forget rant Mullins and his sets of wooden feet and his story.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/mullens.htm

William Parcher
12th February 2006, 08:59 PM
There was no associated odor with the creature. They described the hair as "dirty brown, tangled looking" and "messed up" (the father's words) and looking like it was "in dreads" (the son's description). Both witnesses said no facial details, such as eyes, ears , nose or mouth were visible due to the hair hanging down into its face. The father estimated the body hair to be about 8" long. The arms hung to below knee level. The father estimated the weight to be 300+ pounds and described the build as "bigger than the biggest football player", but not fat. Neither could see anything to indicate gender, the son assumed it was male. The father said the creature's stance was "very upright, not hunched over, almost at attention".

Both said that the creature quietly walked backwards until it came to the cedar where it turned and re-entered the thicket. The father described the creature's gait as being "just like a man".

This is a positive confirmation of father and son hicks.

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 09:21 PM
Chris Murphy makes "bigfoot" tracks and also makes footprints without leaving any sign of having done so.

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/article.php/2006012614431310

My toes look nothing like Murphy's though. Mine are still evenly spread out and show no sign of "shoe squashing".

LTC8K6
12th February 2006, 09:26 PM
Murphy has already been shown to wrong about the flexible foot. We have seen the effect created while wearing a shoe, and I have no doubt you can get a "flexible foot" print with a piece of wood.

Correa Neto
13th February 2006, 02:31 AM
RayG, you can be a pain, LOL...

I nearly burst in to laughter when I read your collection of skinny bigfeet sighting reports.

Why don't you leave these "inconvenient details" aside?

LAL
13th February 2006, 04:10 AM
Lu posted this story over at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=296576





So let me see if I get the point here..

Chambers jokes that he could have made a better costume than what he sees in the PGF...
This is somehow support for the existence of a North American primate...
And offered as proof that the PGF is not a hoax...

Not to mention it is proof of the existence of a ' great folk legend '...

Hey! I didn't need any proof of that...


Also, it was heart warming to hear that Penikas ' wants ' the film to be real..
Why, that puts him in the same camp as Dr. Jane..

In your quote-mining you neglected to mention the context.


Gigantofootecus had posted this:


"My guess is this is one of the reasons you don't show your own suit in motion. Not to suggest that you couldn't pull it off, but rather you're giving due credit to the quality of the suit used in the PGF. Have you concluded by now that if this was a suit, it was created by a 60's makeup artist, namely John Chambers and/or associates? The more the PGF is analyzed, the less I feel that Roger Patterson would have created a suit this sophisticated. Certainly not out of horsehide over muscle layers and all the rest."

And soarwing this:

"Does a home-made horsehide bigfoot suit or ANY 1967 suit do this?

Let's see a horsehide suit show this type of APPARENT detail.

Shazam!

Here we have the "guy in the suit" simulating the PGF.
Who's living in fantasy land again?"


I posted obits and references to the interview in which Chambers denied any involvement. That was the point.

Landis evidently started the rumor, or at least repeated it publicly. Mark Chovinsky never interviewed Chambers, yet there are some who still trot out the rumors that Chambers built the "suit" and even the Minnesota Iceman. The fact that Chambers denied any involvement doesn't seem to have made the rounds.

I'm sure you all have had fun for 2300 posts with misinformation, quote-mining, ridicule, arguments that are so ludicrous they can't even be called "weak", and persistant myopia. I may start using some of the more inane comments from this board in my sig line on BFF where most sceptics at least make good points and don't confuse ridicule with debate.

M.K.Davis
13th February 2006, 04:22 AM
[QUOTE=primateer;1438187][QUOTE=tube;1437654]

Marlon; I must say, your willingness to "come on board" a forum that includes individuals who may not appreciate your ideas takes courage. But your unwillingness to answer direct, unambiguous questions is spineless.

Why are you resorting to counterattack? Are your claims not on solid ground?


Perhaps you can loan me some of your spine Matt, you seem to have more than you really need. Anwer my question please. It's not a counter attack, but it might lead to a good idea of what true spinelessness really is, and how it can lead to an itchy trigger finger, and can cause a person to shoot from the hip at innocent people. M.K.

LAL
13th February 2006, 04:32 AM
I'd have to disagree. I haven't found the Skookum cast 'interesting' for a very long time.

Even Meldrum no longer finds it as compelling as he once did.

RayG

You're hanging a lot on your own interpretation of a couple of quotes. Have you e-mailed him for clarification? His response might be interesting.

LAL
13th February 2006, 05:13 AM
Well, Matt, do you think that the dog's eye is an illusion? Certainly the head has been stretched and skewed. You are using much too weighty a word when you say assertion. I say what I think. When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about. I'd like to think that I can talk about them, without being stoned if I'm wrong. I'm looking for answers like everyone else. I can change course in mid stream if need be. Here's and example. ://jmichaelms.tripod.com/HIS/honey.htm Go here and view a video that led me down an entirely different road than what I expected. M.K.


Wow! Well done. I'd read the tracks were alligator, so that wasn't true either. There was a discussion of the Honey Island tracks here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1161255&highlight=Honey+Island#post1161255).

Does Dennett know?

LAL
13th February 2006, 05:50 AM
Somebody should put a standing 6.5' tall bear in frame 352 to compare to Patty. I wonder if Patty will look as big?

Maybe that walking away frame would be better. 72?... the one with the perfect foot.

How about a defensive lineman from the period?

The BBC film was not an attempt to duplicate the suit, remember.

How about a whole thread on Patty vs. the NFL?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11263&st=0

RayG
13th February 2006, 06:07 AM
RayG, you can be a pain, LOL...

Yep, that's my style. :D

I nearly burst in to laughter when I read your collection of skinny bigfeet sighting reports.

Damn, one of the few times I wasn't attempting to be humorous too. :eek:

Why don't you leave these "inconvenient details" aside?

Ummm... that's my style too!! I want the mystery solved, but I want to use facts to solve it.

RayG

RayG
13th February 2006, 06:39 AM
In your quote-mining you neglected to mention the context.


...yet there are some who still trot out the rumors that Chambers built the "suit"...

LAL, I didn't get the impression anyone here was claiming Chambers built the suit, merely that Chambers stated IF he had built the suit, he would have done a better job, as per his own words:

"Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've done better.' "

I'd like to know whether it was confirmed that Chambers was joking when he said that.

RayG

RayG
13th February 2006, 06:47 AM
You're hanging a lot on your own interpretation of a couple of quotes. Have you e-mailed him for clarification? His response might be interesting.

Well, Meldrum DID make the statements concerning the compelling nature of the cast, and I've seen no effort on his part to correct any misinterpretation I may have regarding his statements. Therefore, I assume I'm not incorrect in my observation.

For what it's worth, I have corresponded via email with him in the past, but Dr. Meldrum seemed to lose interest, and stopped replying when I pressed him about test results on the evidence from the Skookum cast. :cool:

After that I never pursued further conversation with him. His statements stand on their own.

I'm pretty sure he'd give YOU his impressions of the cast though, you come off as much more of a fan than I do. :D

RayG

tube
13th February 2006, 09:07 AM
Marlon;

Well, you are obviously unwilling to answer questions about eye infections, boils, scars, "mid-foot flexibility", or dilated pupils. How about "scampering down to all fours"? Does the film subject "scamper down to all fours"?

This would seem to be a rather obvious feature, something able to be seen more clearly than, say, Beckjord's "extra baboon head".

LTC8K6
13th February 2006, 09:20 AM
Does the film subject "scamper down to all fours"?

Did Bob Titmus mention this? He should have seen that clearly in the tracks.

Handprints would have been a big deal to P/G as well, I would think.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 10:51 AM
....AFAIK most bigfeet are not supposed to be black.....

My understanding is that most are black, and other colors are also seen.

...AFAIK they are supposed to have "T-shaped" torsos, something Patty has not, and BBC´s bigfoot has....

My understanding is that the males tend to be huge and barrel-chested, and females tend to be more squaty, with large hips.

This is similar to gorilla physiology.

...BBC's film also seems to have better detail than PGF.....

Since the BBC's reproduction was film so many years later, and with superior photographic equipment, that should be expected.

...Patty has a lot of "weird" anatomic features, not found in BBC's bigfoot....

Such as?

...I see someone wearing a costume, with a diaper-like butt...

Bears and gorillas have "diaper-like butts". It should be expected with a sasquatch creature.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 10:52 AM
...."Sasquatches have been seen both with substantial girth as well as looking decidedly skinny."....

I stand corrected.

Apparently, they are reported as skinny.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 10:57 AM
"Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've done better.' "


I'd like to know whether it was confirmed that Chambers was joking when he said that.

RayG

Whether or not he was joking, this is for sure:

He states that he didn't create the Patterson suit, and he didn't "do better" on a subsequent attempt to reproduce the film.

RayG
13th February 2006, 11:12 AM
Whether or not he was joking, this is for sure:

He states that he didn't create the Patterson suit, and he didn't "do better" on a subsequent attempt to reproduce the film.

I don't believe anyone implied otherwise. I was talking about what Chambers SAID, not what he DID. (can't speak for anyone else mind you)

RayG

Skeptical Greg
13th February 2006, 11:15 AM
Bears and gorillas have "diaper-like butts". It should be expected with a sasquatch creature. Uhh, no it shouldn't; outside of the minds of those who don't have a problem with the hodge podge costume that Patterson put together...

There is a morphologically sound reason bears and gorillas have "diaper-like butts" .

Any idea what that reason is ?

Huntster
13th February 2006, 11:46 AM
....There is a morphologically sound reason bears and gorillas have "diaper-like butts" .

Any idea what that reason is ?

Yes, I have an idea what that reason is.

Why don't you enlighten me why this is morphologically sound for bears and gorillas and not a sasquatch.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 11:47 AM
I don't believe anyone implied otherwise. I was talking about what Chambers SAID, not what he DID. (can't speak for anyone else mind you)

RayG

My point is that all who state that it would be easy to reproduce (and even "mo' betta") haven't done so.

Nobody has.

RayG
13th February 2006, 11:57 AM
My point is that all who state that it would be easy to reproduce (and even "mo' betta") haven't done so.

Nobody has.

I know Dfoot is trying to reproduce it, but I don't know if he'd call it easy.

RayG

Correa Neto
13th February 2006, 12:09 PM
My understanding is that most are black, and other colors are also seen.
My understanding is that the males tend to be huge and barrel-chested, and females tend to be more squaty, with large hips.

This is similar to gorilla physiology.

Gorillas X bigfeet... You are missing something here. Diogenes already pointed that.

And have you managed to obtain real a bigfoot specimen so we can compare it with Patty and BBC's bigffot? If not, what are your "understandings" based in?

Since the BBC's reproduction was film so many years later, and with superior photographic equipment, that should be expected.

Are you sure that this is the single reason?
Now, considering the smaller definition of PGF when compared with BBC's, the fact that flaws (check Dfoot's posts to find a list of them) in Patty costume can be seen is a testimony that it was not as sophisticated as claimed. If PGF had a better definition, the hoax would be even more clear.

Patty's weird anatomic details have already been discussed. Scroll the thread and you'll find them.

Bears and gorillas have "diaper-like butts". It should be expected with a sasquatch creature.

Hmmm... No you are bringing bears... Patty's diaper butt has already been discussed, and the bear argument was also used. You are missing a point here -again, the same you missed at the very start of you post. Want a clue? Here it is: 4X2. Patty's butt is an unlikely anatomical feature. It's not hard to figure out why.

Skeptical Greg
13th February 2006, 12:16 PM
Yes, I have an idea what that reason is.

Why don't you enlighten me why this is morphologically sound for bears and gorillas and not a sasquatch.

Let's see.. Huntster says " Yes, I have an idea what that reason is. "


Then says.. " Why don't you enlighten me .. "

I'm confused ..

Anyway, iF you know what the reason is, how does that reason apply to Patty ?

LTC8K6
13th February 2006, 12:19 PM
Who said Patty's suit would be easy to reproduce?

Clearly there were suits like it long before the P/G film. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, as has been shown numerous times.

I don't recall any claims about the suit being easy to reproduce, just that suits like that had been around for a while already, countering the claim that the suit couldn't have been made in 1967.

It could certainly have been made in 1967. Easily? That's a matter of opinion and money, I guess.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 12:30 PM
...And have you managed to obtain real a bigfoot specimen so we can compare it with Patty and BBC's bigffot? If not, what are your "understandings" based in?....

I have not obtained a sasquatch specimen.

I base my understandings on the eyewitness testimony that I have read.

...Are you sure that this is the single reason?...
No, but it is a very likely reason. We know what type of camera/film Patterson used. We do not know what type oc camera/film the BBC used, but I suspect it was a newer and better camera/film combo.

...Now, considering the smaller definition of PGF when compared with BBC's, the fact that flaws (check Dfoot's posts to find a list of them) in Patty costume can be seen is a testimony that it was not as sophisticated as claimed. If PGF had a better definition, the hoax would be even more clear....

I do not acknowledge the flaws that Dfoot has listed. I simply don't see them.

...Patty's weird anatomic details have already been discussed. Scroll the thread and you'll find them....

Certainly one or two come to your mind, since you have mentioned them. I prefer not to go back reading pages of posts, and a search of "weird anatomic details" yields nothing.

Please mention one or two.

....Hmmm... No you are bringing bears... Patty's diaper butt has already been discussed, and the bear argument was also used. You are missing a point here -again, the same you missed at the very start of you post. Want a clue? Here it is: 4X2. Patty's butt is an unlikely anatomical feature. It's not hard to figure out why...

Actually, the gluteus maximus (http://nzsp.org.nz/index02/Publications/JournalPDF/33(3)Nov05_p95-100.pdf) is key to bipedalism.

...Gluteus maximus is superficially the largest
muscle of the body. This important muscle is
distinctive in comparison with other primates due
to evolutionary postural changes from quadrupeds
to bipeds. In the human, gluteus maximus has
increased leverage due to its superior attachment
on to the dorsal ilium (Marzke et al., 1988) and
in a morphological study comparing baboon hind
legs with human legs, it was found that gluteus
maximus has a larger relative weight in humans
(Ito et al., 2000). This single joint muscle allows
for increased force production to maintain an
upright position needed for bipedalism.....

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

Hitch
13th February 2006, 12:40 PM
Who said Patty's suit would be easy to reproduce?

Clearly there were suits like it long before the P/G film. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, as has been shown numerous times.

I don't recall any claims about the suit being easy to reproduce, just that suits like that had been around for a while already, countering the claim that the suit couldn't have been made in 1967.

It could certainly have been made in 1967. Easily? That's a matter of opinion and money, I guess.
I don't think a suit like the one most likely seen in the P/G film would be very hard to produce at all. It would, however, be nearly impossible to get a bigfoot woo to admit you had reproduced it. No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 12:45 PM
Who said Patty's suit would be easy to reproduce?....

I say that if Roger Patterson did it, the motion picture industry should be able to reproduce it easier than it was for him.

We have a quote above credited to Chambers that he could have done it better, yet we haven't seen it, and his apes in "Planet of the Apes" (as has been noted) was more remarkable in the faces, not the bulk and movement of the body, and certainly not the feet.

...Clearly there were suits like it long before the P/G film. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, as has been shown numerous times....

Name a pre-1967 motion picture ape suit that was like the Patterson film subject. I'll rent and watch the movie. I'd like to see it's feet. I'd like to see it walk, step into a depression, and see if I can see the thigh muscles move.

...I don't recall any claims about the suit being easy to reproduce, just that suits like that had been around for a while already, countering the claim that the suit couldn't have been made in 1967

It could certainly have been made in 1967. Easily? That's a matter of opinion and money, I guess....

Yup. Enough money can do just about anything. The lack of financial investment in sasquatchery by science/academia certainly demonstrates what a lack of money can mean.

I suppose we'll need another rich rodeo rider in order to produce a film like what Patterson shot.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 12:58 PM
I don't think a suit like the one most likely seen in the P/G film would be very hard to produce at all.....

Here you go, LTC8K6. Here's one who is bold enough to talk the talk.

So, Hitch; why hasn't it been done?

... It would, however, be nearly impossible to get a bigfoot woo to admit you had reproduced it. No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film...

Let's see someone produce a sasquatch suit that has muscle movement like this (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&p=166083&#entry166083).

It hasn't been done yet, and it won't be done, either.

LTC8K6
13th February 2006, 01:06 PM
No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film.

Good point. They describe a lot of detail that they really cannot see due to the film's low resolution and poor quality, then they use that detail to claim the suit is good.

Of course we skeptics are sometimes guilty of using objects that we "see" in the film as well. I think we have been more careful to use only those things which are large and obvious, though. Still, I wouldn't let a skeptic off the hook.

Starrman
13th February 2006, 01:42 PM
Here you go, LTC8K6. Here's one who is bold enough to talk the talk.

So, Hitch; why hasn't it been done?



Let's see someone produce a sasquatch suit that has muscle movement like this (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8332&st=0&p=166083&#entry166083).

It hasn't been done yet, and it won't be done, either.

I too would like to see a real animal whose thigh fur dissapears up into a butt-diaper. Seriously - you can see the seam between the butt and the thigh in that animated gif. I really don't understand how ANYONE can take that seriously as evidence of a real animal.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 02:14 PM
.... Seriously - you can see the seam between the butt and the thigh in that animated gif......

Ummm....No, I can't. Even with my reading glasses on.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 02:15 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti)

....Recently, Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature, wrote that "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold"

The article (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/pf/041025-2_pf.html).

Skeptical Greg
13th February 2006, 02:32 PM
....Recently, Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature, wrote that "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold"


Uhh, did you miss the part about ' mythical ' ?

Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

Huntster
13th February 2006, 03:09 PM
.....AFAIK most bigfeet are not supposed to be black.....

Interesting what one can learn with a little effort.

A participant on BFF read through the published BFRO and TBRC reports with fur color in mind. His results are posted here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12936&st=0&gopid=296800&):

...For one thing the perecentages of the four groups (black/brown, red/brown, tan/blonde, and grey/white) are amazingly consistant from region to region....

Sasquatch hair color distribution
Data from BFRO and TBRC

East of the Mississippi

The Southeast, (including all states as far north as TN, KY, and NC.)
Black/brown 100 66.2%
Red/brown 22 14.5%
Tan/blonde 8 5.3%
Grey/White 21 14%

The Middle Atlantic (VA, WV, MD, and DE)
Black/brown 22 71.0
Red/brown 1 2.2%
Tan/blonde 3 9.7%
Grey/white 5 16.1%

The Northeast. (New England plus PA, NY, and NJ)
Black/brown 61 67.0%
Red/brown 8 8.8%
Tan/blonde 8 8.8%
Grey/white 14 15.4%

The Rust Belt (OH, IL, IN, WI, and MI)
Black/brown 115 66.5%
Red/brown 22 12.7%
Tan/blonde 7 4.0%
Grey/white 29 16.8%

West of the Mississippi

The Arklatex (Ark, LA, TX, and OK)
Black/brown 99 51.8%
Red/brown 48 25.1%
Tan/blonde 10 5.2%
Grey/white 34 17.9%




The Upper Midwest (KS, MO, NE, Iowa, ND, SD, MN, &WI)
Black/brown 39 60.0%
Red/brown 12 18.4%
Tan/blond 7 10.8%
Grey/white 7 10.8%

The Mountain West (AZ, CO, ID MT, NM, UT, and WY)
Black/brown 76 74.5%
Red/brown 6 5.8%
Tan/blonde 9 8.8%
Grey/white 11 10.8% (no grey/white reported MT, ID, or WY)

The West Coast (CA, O, WA, and BC)
Black/brown 206 75.5%
Red/brown 39 14.3%
Tan/blonde 14 5.1%
Grey/white 14 5.1%

Canadian Provinces east of BC

Black/brown 31 73.8%
Red/brown 2 4.8%
Tan/blonde 4 9.5%
Grey/white 5 11.9%

Grand Totals, all regions

Black/brown 749 66.9%
Red/brown 160 14.3%
Tan/blonde 70 6.3%
Grey/white 140 12.5%

Huntster
13th February 2006, 03:10 PM
.....Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

And...........

So............

Sasquatches likely exist or existed.

Correa Neto
13th February 2006, 03:37 PM
I have not obtained a sasquatch specimen.

I base my understandings on the eyewitness testimony that I have read.

So, you don't really know how a bigfoot looks like. Have you ever bothered to look how many differences there are in bigfeet eyewitnesses' descriptions? I guess not, otherwise you would have noticed that there are descriptions of skinny bigfeet... So, the reports are... I'll be condescendent this time... Not enough to say if Patty or BBC's bigfoot is more similar to the real things-assuming they exist.

No, but it is a very likely reason. We know what type of camera/film Patterson used. We do not know what type oc camera/film the BBC used, but I suspect it was a newer and better camera/film combo.

Quite conveniently for P&G, their movie is shaky, the subject is quite small, few frames are sharp...

I do not acknowledge the flaws that Dfoot has listed. I simply don't see them.

Couldn't you be demonstrating prejudice here?
FYI, I can see them.

Certainly one or two come to your mind, since you have mentioned them. I prefer not to go back reading pages of posts, and a search of "weird anatomic details" yields nothing.

Please mention one or two.

Feet, seams in the costume, the diaper butt, the head crest, folds in the skin the look like loose costume...

Actually, the gluteus maximus (http://nzsp.org.nz/index02/Publications/JournalPDF/33(3)Nov05_p95-100.pdf) is key to bipedalism.

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

You are wrong.

Are bears bipedal?
No.
So, you comparsion between butts from bigfeet and bears is invalid. And its not the first time I read it. And its not the first time I write why I think its wrong.

The diaper-butt is too big. Patty would have to be a fat bigfoot to have such a butt. And I think we both agree that fat animals don't live too much in the wilderness...

No, Patty could not have been accumulating fat to hibernate, since according to "bigfoot experts" they do not hibernate, since they avoid caves in order not to compete with bears.

Footers may try to find excuses, but still the fact remains that Patty is an unlikely animal and a likely hoax. Sure, since humans are animals, and a human was wearing a Patty suit, one could say that it was an animal, actually a bipedal primate, after all...

Footer analysis is full of prejudices...

Correa Neto
13th February 2006, 03:42 PM
Uhh, did you miss the part about ' mythical ' ?

Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?

Correa Neto
13th February 2006, 03:44 PM
So, Huntster, you see a black/brown female bigfoot in PGF?

Funny, I see a person wearing a black costume...

Huntster
13th February 2006, 04:59 PM
.....So, the reports are... I'll be condescendent this time... Not enough to say if Patty or BBC's bigfoot is more similar to the real things-assuming they exist....

Apparently, by your own admission, there are widely different descriptions by eyewitnesses.

Therefore, skinny sasquatches with long legs, short arms, long, flowing red hair are occasionally seen.

So, the BBC recreation is just as accurate as the PG sasquatch, and all sightings are accurate.

Thanks for straightening me out.

...Feet, seams in the costume, the diaper butt, the head crest, folds in the skin the look like loose costume...

I don't see the seams.

The feet are as theorized by Krantz and Meldrum, with a more protruding and broad heel than humans. We can see the toes very clearly in a few frames.

The large butt is, I again stress, what should be expected in a mature, female sasquatch. Many eyewitnesses have described females in this way.

The sagital crest is unusual in female apes, but there's nothing that dictates that this cannot be so.

I do see the "folds" in the hide as she walks. I don't see how that establishes that it's a suit.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Actually, the gluteus maximus is key to bipedalism.

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

You are wrong.

I am wrong?

The quote was provided with a link. Are you professing that:

Judy Wilson, MEd, Dip PhysEd, Dip Physio
School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago
Emma Ferris BPhty*
Anna Heckler BPhty*
Lisa Maitland, BPhty*
Carol Taylor BPhty*

are wrong?

Are bears bipedal?
No.
So, you comparsion between butts from bigfeet and bears is invalid. And its not the first time I read it. And its not the first time I write why I think its wrong....

The butt on bears, humans, gorillas, and (I will speculate) become larger with age.

The butts of female humans and gorillas become larger after bearing young, even at a relatively young age. I will speculate that the same is true of sasquatches.

...The diaper-butt is too big. Patty would have to be a fat bigfoot to have such a butt. And I think we both agree that fat animals don't live too much in the wilderness...

I think you've been watching too many dietary commercials.

Again, bears (North American omnivores) do, indeed, become quite fat, especially during October (autumn).

...No, Patty could not have been accumulating fat to hibernate, since according to "bigfoot experts" they do not hibernate, since they avoid caves in order not to compete with bears....

And what do you base that amazing knowledge on? (Here's where I pull out the weapon you so regularly use on me:)

Do you base this on the observation of a real live sasquatch?

Huntster
13th February 2006, 05:03 PM
Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?

Twisting and spinning again, I see.

The quote was well linked to both the entire article and Wikipedia's entry on it's originator:

Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Now, can we go back and discuss that, or are you and Diogenes going to continue to twist his statement by pulling the word "myth" out of context?

Huntster
13th February 2006, 05:05 PM
So, Huntster, you see a black/brown female bigfoot in PGF?...

Yes.

...Funny, I see a person wearing a black costume...

Well, that just goes to show that my eyesight isn't as bad as I thought it was getting.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 05:13 PM
....Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.....

I'm not familiar with the details of many of them, because my study of aboriginial American legend and folklore is limited.

I am very impressed with what Richard Nelson recorded in "Make Prayers to the Raven" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226571637/qid=1139878913/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2341113-0842233?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), mostly because I've hunted extensively in the area near Huslia, Alaska, where Nelson studied Koyukon culture.

I wouldn't say they are "real". I'd say that they have a basis in truth.

(BTW, the Koyukon belief in sasquatch is also well recorded in the book. I give a book report here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8881&hl=lore).)

One excerpt I'd like folks here to consider carefully:

...Coming into Koyukon society from a very different background, I was suddenly confronted by the power of this reality. Although I had lived for several years among other native Alaskan peoples, I had never found access to this element of their lives. Among the Koyukon, my teachers clearly perceived in the fullest measure a different world than I did, or than people from my culture could perceive. Each of them was also rational and intelligent by any measure, biculturally fluent, and acutely observant. The great difference in our points of view was something I had been prepared for intellectually; but I was entirely unprepared for it emotionally, unready of the impact of living it.

My clear and certain comprehension of the natural world was ended. Fundamental assumptions I had learned about the nature of nature were thrown into doubt. I must emphasize that I underwent no great conversion and emerged no less an agnostic than before. But now I had to face an elemental question, as an anthropologist of course, but even more so as someone who had always been deeply involved with nature: Is there not a single reality in the natural world, an absolute and universal reality? Apparently, the answer to this question is no.

The issue that perplexed me is far from new in anthropology, though it was certainly new for me to deal with it as a direct personal experience. Anthropologists and linguists have written at great length about the different realities that humans perceive as members of different cultures and speakers of different languages.....

....The basic premise underlying anthropological writings on this subject, as I understand it, is this: Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see. In other words, my Koyukon teachers had learned through their own traditions about dimensions in nature that I, as a Euro-American, had either not learned to perceive or had been explicitly taught do not exist....

UrsulaV
13th February 2006, 05:58 PM
Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

Hey, now, that's a pretty broad statement...

I would suggest that a lot of myths have a basis in...mmm...made-up stuff as well. I would be hard pressed to locate the grain of truth behind humanity being licked into existence by the tongue of a giant cow, nor do I believe there's any grain of truth behind the story that there's a giant serpent encircling the world.

And I'd seriously question the basis in truth to the Cherokee story that the Bay-kok, a skeleton with translucent skin stretched over it, roams the woods, rattling, and when it finds a sleeping brave, makes a tiny incision in him and eats part of his stomach, whereupon the brave sickens and dies. (There's a Native American story that I'd bet Huntster doesn't believe. 'Course, I could be wrong...)

I don't think we can say with any kind of certainty that myths neccessarily have a basis in truth, and I don't care whether the editor of Nature believes otherwise.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 07:48 PM
....I would be hard pressed to locate the grain of truth behind humanity being licked into existence by the tongue of a giant cow, nor do I believe there's any grain of truth behind the story that there's a giant serpent encircling the world....

It's like the Genesis story. It's a story written based on the oral traditions handed down over many, many generations who didn't have the benefit of modern science with which to explain the beginnings to today's woos of skepticism.

And, of course, you fail to notice or accept the general similarities among many of these legends.

...I don't care whether the editor of Nature believes otherwise.

Of course you don't. I would never expect most on this board to even accept the words of science after they've so boldly proclaimed what is and what isn't.

(I should have prophesized that before you wrote it; then you could have challenged my powers of prophesy).

LTC8K6
13th February 2006, 07:58 PM
Since it was quoted, I saw it.

Let's see someone produce a sasquatch suit that has muscle movement like this.

It hasn't been done yet, and it won't be done, either.

I see color shifts, light level changes, artifacts, and what looks like flaps moving. I do not really see any muscle movement. I see what you are calling muscle movement, but I don't agree.

Huntster
13th February 2006, 08:41 PM
...I see what you are calling muscle movement, but I don't agree.

As the film subject is looking back and walking, it steps down into a slight depression, and the thigh, calf, and buttock shows a movement that stops quickly when (as I see it) the muscles contract as the weight of the subject is transferred to that leg.

If it is not muscle, what is it?

Huntster
13th February 2006, 08:54 PM
Let's see.. Huntster says " Yes, I have an idea what that reason is. "


Then says.. " Why don't you enlighten me .. "

Taking words out of context is a very old and tired debate tactic. Usually high school debaters graduate from that before the age of 18.

Let's finish the quote, shall we Diogenes?:


Why don't you enlighten me why this is morphologically sound for bears and gorillas and not a sasquatch.

At any rate, I think I answered the question addressing someone else:

It is a fact that as both gorillas and bears age, their hindquarters grow proportionally larger than the hindquarters of younger gorillas and bears.

It is also often reported and theorized that male sasquatches are more slender at the hip and barrel chested than female sasquatches, which are often described as wide in the hips and buttocks. This is generally true of humans, as well.

Also, it is well recognized that female humans and apes grow larger hips and buttocks as they age, and also after their first offspring is born (even though that may occur at a relatively young age).

Now can you crap up an excuse of why this wouldn't also be true for a sasquatch? Or would you prefer to take some of my words out of context (yet again) in order to obfuscate the debate?

UrsulaV
14th February 2006, 06:14 AM
It's like the Genesis story. It's a story written based on the oral traditions handed down over many, many generations who didn't have the benefit of modern science with which to explain the beginnings to today's woos of skepticism.

And, of course, you fail to notice or accept the general similarities among many of these legends.

That's lovely, Huntster, but no matter how much you patronize me, there's still a signiiiificant difference between a creation story fitting the pattern of a lot of creation stories, and a story with basis in truth. You apparently believe that sasquatch myths contain a basis in truth, i.e. that there's a big primate running around North America.

Do you thus believe that there's a comparable grain of truth to the various creation stories--namely that they're based on a Real Creature? So there really WAS a giant world cow, or a giant serpent encircling the earth? Are you trying to claim that the creation myth wherein Muskrat swims to the bottom of the ocean and brings up a pawful of mud which becomes the land is based on the actual factual existence of a continent-sized muskrat?

You're also wrong in that I don't acknowledge the similiarities between some creation myths--granted that I've never discussed the topic with you, I'm chalking this up to Yet Another Case of Huntster making sweeping generalizations about my opinions based on what you WANT the bad 'ol skeptic to believe rather than actually, y'know, asking. Obviously it's a happier world in your head if you don't trouble yourself by checking to see if your statements about my beliefs are true or not!

But that's neither here nor there. Cloud the issue all you like, Huntster, but similiarities in the basic structure of creation stories in no way shape or form count as a "basis in truth" in the same fashion that you're claiming a sasquatch legend has a basis in truth.

Unless of course you'd like to show us a film of that continent-sized Muskrat....

UrsulaV
14th February 2006, 06:24 AM
Of course you don't. I would never expect most on this board to even accept the words of science after they've so boldly proclaimed what is and what isn't.


Scientists are allowed to disagree, Huntster. It doesn't make one of 'em not a scientist, it doesn't mean one of 'em rejects science, and I suspect you actually know this, and are just lookin' for a way to try and stick it to the people on the board, and saw an opening. (I could probably have prophesized that, but why waste time?)

Fortunately, reading back, 'pears that those were the words of Diogenes, and not the editor of Nature, who, as I would have guessed, did not making nearly so sweeping a statement about myths having a basis in fact, but merely commented that it makes it more likely that stories of unknown hominids may be based on a grain of truth.

So sorry, Huntster, "science" (or at least Nature) isn't being rejected by most of the people on the board. We're objecting to a statement by another poster in response to a much narrower and heavily hedged about statement by said editor.

LTC8K6
14th February 2006, 06:38 AM
Science wonders how a biped can walk normally, or even "glide" along, when it's feet are sinking deeply into the soil. 3+ inches in the case of Patty, for example.

I think I would be walking funny if my feet were sinking even 2 inches into the soil.

Maybe that's just me?

My footprints would have dirt scattered all around them from withdrawing my foot from each hole, too. I'd probably have toe drag marks in each deep footprint too, from my toes hitting the front edge of each hole my foot made.

Being as heavy as I am, and sinking as deep as I do, the soil would likely rise up between my toes much of the time and be carried out of the print with my foot, leaving a print with vague or nonexistent toe marks, especially in the mud.

Orthoptera
14th February 2006, 07:13 AM
....[QUOTE]The basic premise underlying anthropological writings on this subject, as I understand it, is this: Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see.


Well this is an ancient idea of course, from Plato's Parable of the Cave and beyond, and a truism, as far as it goes. Who can dispute that the mind interprets the senses? As to the notion that our view of natural phenomenon relies on cultural sensibilities, again, this seems obvious and widely accepted. I can (perhaps imperfectly) understand how a coyote can be both a simple dog and Coyote the trickster, without necessarily ascribing to that worldview. So if you are claiming (as some do) that the Sasquatch is some sort of spirit being, a creature not entirely of this world, and therefore not understandable in purely physical terms, I say fine. Enjoy your pudding. Many people treasure such poetic interpetations of the world, and this one seems harmless enough. I know one person very well who has peopled his secret world with ghosts, another who sees angels hovering everywhere. As you may have gathered, though, the JREF board is emphatically not a sympathetic audience for such notions.

But what is usually presented with the Bigfoot phenomenon in general, and the Patterson film in specific, is not that there are different realities, but rather a knowable, testable, photographable creature living undetected among us. And not just any creature, but an enormous biped with incredible abilities, a creature indeed that surpasses all known animals, including humans, in stealth, intelligence, and survivablility. This is really a spectacular and unprecedented claim, but if only those with the eyes to see can produce a Bigfoot, well, fine again. It's just that those with the "inner eye" have been utterly incapable of providing any reasonable evidence, despite many years of trying. Is sasquatch a Tinkerbell, waiting for scientists to shout out their belief?

And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?

Skeptical Greg
14th February 2006, 08:04 AM
It is also often reported and theorized that male sasquatches are more slender at the hip and barrel chested than female sasquatches, which are often described as wide in the hips and buttocks. This is generally true of humans, as well.

Also, it is well recognized that female humans and apes grow larger hips and buttocks as they age, and also after their first offspring is born (even though that may occur at a relatively young age).

Now can you crap up an excuse of why this wouldn't also be true for a sasquatch? Or would you prefer to take some of my words out of context (yet again) in order to obfuscate the debate?


And the only Sas caught on film doesn’t match this reported/theorized model..

Why do you suppose that is ?

LTC8K6
14th February 2006, 08:40 AM
It is also often reported and theorized that male sasquatches are more slender at the hip and barrel chested than female sasquatches, which are often described as wide in the hips and buttocks. This is generally true of humans, as well.

Also, it is well recognized that female humans and apes grow larger hips and buttocks as they age, and also after their first offspring is born (even though that may occur at a relatively young age).

I'll bet that Huntster made all of the above up.

Faith Hill doesn't look any wider to me.....

LTC8K6
14th February 2006, 09:13 AM
With the gait, length of stride, locomotion and general biomechanics of the sasquatch, the general science communities by a 9 to 1 margin call the film authentic.

That's pretty bold. Wonder where they came up with that?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/gps.htm

Huntster
14th February 2006, 12:36 PM
...You apparently believe that sasquatch myths contain a basis in truth, i.e. that there's a big primate running around North America.

You've got it backwards (yet again):

I believe there's a big primate running around North America, and they are the basis of the sasquatch "myth".

...Do you thus believe that there's a comparable grain of truth to the various creation stories--namely that they're based on a Real Creature?...

No.

...So there really WAS a giant world cow, or a giant serpent encircling the earth?...

No.

...Are you trying to claim that the creation myth wherein Muskrat swims to the bottom of the ocean and brings up a pawful of mud which becomes the land is based on the actual factual existence of a continent-sized muskrat?...

No.

...You're also wrong in that I don't acknowledge the similiarities between some creation myths--granted that I've never discussed the topic with you, I'm chalking this up to Yet Another Case of Huntster making sweeping generalizations about my opinions based on what you WANT the bad 'ol skeptic to believe rather than actually, y'know, asking....

Sort of like what you're doing here; generalizing that, since I believe in sasquatch (because thousands of people report seeing them), you ask if I believe in Giant Muskrats (which nobody reports seeing).

I guess one sweeping generalization is worth another.

...Obviously it's a happier world in your head if you don't trouble yourself by checking to see if your statements about my beliefs are true or not!...

Yes. As a matter of fact, it is.

Again, one sweeping generalization is worth another.

In fact, I figure mine are more valuable than yours.

Just like you figure yours are more valuable than mine.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

...But that's neither here nor there. Cloud the issue all you like, Huntster, but similiarities in the basic structure of creation stories in no way shape or form count as a "basis in truth" in the same fashion that you're claiming a sasquatch legend has a basis in truth....

Perhaps not.

But they do set up a pattern of the basis of understanding that existed before modern science. Further, that basis of understanding (as Henry Gee suggests) will be required to come under review as we find evidence of "the basis of truth" in some of the legends.

Sorry. That's just how science works. It ain't what you want, it's what you learn, whether you like it or not.

UrsulaV
14th February 2006, 01:50 PM
Sort of like what you're doing here; generalizing that, since I believe in sasquatch (because thousands of people report seeing them), you ask if I believe in Giant Muskrats (which nobody reports seeing).

I guess one sweeping generalization is worth another.


It would be, except that I ASKED if you believed in giant muskrats. You just went straight on and told me what you thought I believed in. At no point did I claim that you actually believed in giant muskrats without asking first.

You, on t'other hand, went straight to telling me I denied the similarities between creation myths without ever bothering to check in with me...

Correa Neto
14th February 2006, 04:11 PM
Apparently, by your own admission, there are widely different descriptions by eyewitnesses.

Therefore, skinny sasquatches with long legs, short arms, long, flowing red hair are occasionally seen.

So, the BBC recreation is just as accurate as the PG sasquatch, and all sightings are accurate.

Thanks for straightening me out.

You seeem to be having a problem understanding the real issue...

Everyone who has ever bothered to study bigfoot or any other cryptid should be aware of the contradiction in the descriptions obtained from sighting reports. YOU should be, since you came from BFF...

Now, suppose Patty and BBC's bigfoot are bot accurate. Explain the morphological differences, please. And since we are on this topic, provide a reasonable explanation for the morphological differences observed in the descriptions obtained from sighting reports.

Or simply answer the questions:
How does a bigfoot is supposed to look like?
And what are you backing your answer to the above question?

I don't see the seams.

2 options:
(1) put your prejudices aside
(2) go see an ophtalmologist

The feet are as theorized by Krantz and Meldrum, with a more protruding and broad heel than humans. We can see the toes very clearly in a few frames.

What about the squarefoot seen in the frames? Its nothin like Krantz and Meldrum propose. A proposal with serious flaws, as I have already said.

The large butt is, I again stress, what should be expected in a mature, female sasquatch. Many eyewitnesses have described females in this way.

Huntster, for how long would a fat mature bigfoot female survive in the wilderness?

We can use humans as a comparsion (no, bears and gorillas do not qualify). Both males and females accumulate fat tissue due to age, protein-rich diets and sedentarism. Do bigfeet live a sedentary way of life, feeding on junk food?

Note also that we accumulate fat tissues in the butt AND the belly. Can you see a swollen fat belly in Patty?

The sagital crest is unusual in female apes, but there's nothing that dictates that this cannot be so.

In other words, its an unlikely feature.

I do see the "folds" in the hide as she walks. I don't see how that establishes that it's a suit.

Because you don't want them to be folds in the cloth.

I am wrong?

The quote was provided with a link. Are you professing that:

Judy Wilson, MEd, Dip PhysEd, Dip Physio
School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago
Emma Ferris BPhty*
Anna Heckler BPhty*
Lisa Maitland, BPhty*
Carol Taylor BPhty*

are wrong?



The butt on bears, humans, gorillas, and (I will speculate) become larger with age.

The butts of female humans and gorillas become larger after bearing young, even at a relatively young age. I will speculate that the same is true of sasquatches.

I propose YOUR analysis of the question is wrong, for the reasons I wrote above. Appeal to authority noticed.

BTW, being bipedal and having well-developed gluteus maximus does not mean to have a big diaper-like butt. Imagine the size of the butts from olympic runners woukd have if you were right...

I think you've been watching too many dietary commercials.

Again, bears (North American omnivores) do, indeed, become quite fat, especially during October (autumn).

Due to a diet composed mainly of...
And how is distribution of fat in these animals? Where else Patty shouch have accumulated fat?

And what do you base that amazing knowledge on? (Here's where I pull out the weapon you so regularly use on me:)

Do you base this on the observation of a real live sasquatch?

Huntster, this "amazing knoweledge" (that IMHO is nothing but baseless speculation) is avaliable at most bigfoot sites. BFF, BFRO, etc. Poor diversion attempt noted.

As you can see, its pretty easy to demolish their speculations.

Huntster
14th February 2006, 05:30 PM
....(I could probably have prophesized that, but why waste time?).....

So, as a scientist, you are open to and capable of the powers of prophesy?

...Fortunately, reading back, 'pears that those were the words of Diogenes, and not the editor of Nature, who, as I would have guessed, did not making nearly so sweeping a statement about myths having a basis in fact, but merely commented that it makes it more likely that stories of unknown hominids may be based on a grain of truth.....

Yup. (Don't listen to that Diogenes guy; he twists and turns so much it's like being in a whirlpool).

Again, your words:

...it makes it more likely that stories of unknown hominids may be based on a grain of truth....

Huntster
14th February 2006, 05:41 PM
[QUOTE=Huntster;1443114]....So if you are claiming (as some do) that the Sasquatch is some sort of spirit being, a creature not entirely of this world, and therefore not understandable in purely physical terms, I say fine. Enjoy your pudding.....

That is not what I'm saying, and I don't like pudding. I'm a meat and rice kind of guy. Protein.

I believe that sasquatches are very high functioning apes.

Some aboriginal American peoples ascribe spiritual powers to sasquatches. Some (like the Koyukon studied by Nelson) believe that the "woodsman" were formerly humans who had committed murder or cannibalism, and were transformed into what they are now.

I have not learned to understand them in that way, have been taught that is not possible, and I have not done so.

...I know one person very well who has peopled his secret world with ghosts, another who sees angels hovering everywhere. As you may have gathered, though, the JREF board is emphatically not a sympathetic audience for such notions...

I have no knowledge or experience with ghosts, and don't "see" angels.

That said, I do not reject the possibility that ghosts exist, and I believe that angels exist.

...But what is usually presented with the Bigfoot phenomenon in general, and the Patterson film in specific, is not that there are different realities, but rather a knowable, testable, photographable creature living undetected among us. And not just any creature, but an enormous biped with incredible abilities, a creature indeed that surpasses all known animals, including humans, in stealth, intelligence, and survivablility. This is really a spectacular and unprecedented claim, but if only those with the eyes to see can produce a Bigfoot, well, fine again. It's just that those with the "inner eye" have been utterly incapable of providing any reasonable evidence, despite many years of trying....

All true.

...Is sasquatch a Tinkerbell, waiting for scientists to shout out their belief?...

No.

...And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?...

Only one: the giant squid.

UrsulaV
14th February 2006, 06:19 PM
Again, your words:

...it makes it more likely that stories of unknown hominids may be based on a grain of truth....

Actually, that was me paraphrasing the views of the gent from Nature, not neccessarily a representation of what I actually believe. Tsk, and after you got so snide at Diogenes for quoting out of context, too. Ah, well.

Not that you asked, but since I fear you'd just decide you knew my opinion anyway, the same way you apparently knew my religion and my views on creation myths, let me state that I don't have any particular opinion about the influence of the hobbit discovery on the likelihood of myths of unknown hominids being true. I've yet to be adequately convinced that local myths were in fact related to or descended from the existence of the "hobbits," but I'd need to know rather more about the culture of the natives of Flores to be able to rule it out, either.

UrsulaV
14th February 2006, 06:21 PM
So, as a scientist, you are open to and capable of the powers of prophesy?

Nope, but as a smartass, I'm open to and capable of making a snide imitation of one of your statements. Sorry to disappoint. :)

Huntster
14th February 2006, 07:51 PM
....Or simply answer the questions:
How does a bigfoot is supposed to look like?.....

Adult males are commonly described as 6’ to 9’ tall, barrel chested, heavily built, long arms, fur from 1” to 4” in length (sometimes described with a “mane”, or longer hair on arms and even down the middle of the back), color includes black (predominately), brown, reddish, tan, and even white.

Adult females are commonly described as 6’ to 8’ tall, heavily built, long arms, pronounced mammary glands, often described with wide hips and large butt, fur from 1” to 4” in length (sometimes described as having longer hair on head), color includes black (predominately), brown, reddish, tan, and even white.

...And what are you backing your answer to the above question?...

From what I have read from the Green, BFRO, and other report databases.

...What about the squarefoot seen in the frames? Its nothin like Krantz and Meldrum propose. A proposal with serious flaws, as I have already said....

I see toes. Others on BFF have shown the ankle contracted and flexed. They have shown the toes contracted and flexed. The feet are very much like Krantz and Meldrum have proposed.

Huntster
14th February 2006, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Huntster :
The large butt is, I again stress, what should be expected in a mature, female sasquatch. Many eyewitnesses have described females in this way.

Huntster, for how long would a fat mature bigfoot female survive in the wilderness?

We can use humans as a comparsion (no, bears and gorillas do not qualify)....

It’s frustrating to try to educate someone when they are ideologically opposed to the education. In other words, prejudiced…….

I think it’s important to inform you that I have skinned out more big game animals than I could possibly recall and count. In one winter alone (nearly 30 years ago) I skinned out many dozens of moose killed by trains while working for the railroad.

I’ve skinned out bears in both spring and fall. I’ve skinned out caribou spring, summer, fall, and winter. I’ve scraped fat from the hides of bear, marten, beaver, wolf, coyote, fox, and otter. I've even helped skin out a seal.

I cannot stress enough that the fat from wild game is not marbled in the meat (unless we are talking about deer that graze in farmer’s fields) like domestic beef. It is found between the meat and the hide, where it provides insulation to supplement the animal’s fur. It is thickest in the fall. I’ve seen the fat on a moose’s rump four inches thick. Bears commonly have fat on the rump that thick or thicker.

On the same animal, one will find very little fat (maybe an inch thick) on the upper legs or breast.

And you demand to compare the Bigfoot with a human and not other wild animals (“they don’t qualify”)?

Why do I bother answering such drivel?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I think you've been watching too many dietary commercials.

Again, bears (North American omnivores) do, indeed, become quite fat, especially during October (autumn).

Due to a diet composed mainly of...

In the PNW in the late summer and fall; salmon, ground squirrels, berries. The same things many believe a sasquatch would eat, because they are believed to be omnivorous like bears.

Nex
14th February 2006, 11:07 PM
[...] And you demand to compare the Bigfoot with a human and not other wild animals (“they don’t qualify”)?[...] But... didn't you just compare squatch to humans, regarding the "diaper butt" appearance, a page or so ago? Why is it OK for you to make that comparison on this topic, but not OK for Correa Neto?

Since your comparison (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1443088#post1443088) was to humans and gorillas, would you be OK with another comparison to humans if it included one to gorillas as well?

Correa Neto
15th February 2006, 02:24 AM
Twisting and spinning again, I see.

The quote was well linked to both the entire article and Wikipedia's entry on it's originator:

Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Now, can we go back and discuss that, or are you and Diogenes going to continue to twist his statement by pulling the word "myth" out of context?

Could you please show me exactly where I twisted the original statement?

This claim of your is quite simple to defend, if you can.

If you can't, remove it.

Correa Neto
15th February 2006, 02:27 AM
So, Huntster, you see a black/brown female bigfoot in PGF?...
Yes.
...Funny, I see a person wearing a black costume...
Well, that just goes to show that my eyesight isn't as bad as I thought it was getting.

Man, you MUST go to an eye doctor.

Seriously.

Correa Neto
15th February 2006, 02:41 AM
I'm not familiar with the details of many of them, because my study of aboriginial American legend and folklore is limited.

I am very impressed with what Richard Nelson recorded in "Make Prayers to the Raven" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226571637/qid=1139878913/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2341113-0842233?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), mostly because I've hunted extensively in the area near Huslia, Alaska, where Nelson studied Koyukon culture.

I wouldn't say they are "real". I'd say that they have a basis in truth.
...snip...

Cultural -or social- anthropologists quite often "fall in love" with the culture they study. Anyone even superficially familiar with anthropological studies in Polinesia know this. Some even adopt their beliefs.

I worked many years in Northern Brazil -Amazonia included. I stayed in the field for at least 20 days each month. I am reasonably well aware of Brazilian lore (Native Brazilian included). Some studies I read are very interesting, and I had the opportunity to help people doing some also (much less than I would like to). This does not mean I think the mapinguari, caipora, boitata, etc. are real beasts.

There MAY be a real basis for bigfoot myth. But this basis MAY NOT be a real unknown primate lurking in North America's forests. I strongly recommend you to read the post where I wrote about what I saw regarding interpretation of Brazilian mythical beings as real creatures.

In the saquatch case, it would be nice to check:
What the original legend says?
What parts of it are considered as "usefull"?

From what I see, only a small part of the myth was used, and interpreted according to the cultural background of the interpreter, completely detached from the original.

LAL
15th February 2006, 04:22 AM
Actually, that was me paraphrasing the views of the gent from Nature, not neccessarily a representation of what I actually believe. Tsk, and after you got so snide at Diogenes for quoting out of context, too. Ah, well.

Not that you asked, but since I fear you'd just decide you knew my opinion anyway, the same way you apparently knew my religion and my views on creation myths, let me state that I don't have any particular opinion about the influence of the hobbit discovery on the likelihood of myths of unknown hominids being true. I've yet to be adequately convinced that local myths were in fact related to or descended from the existence of the "hobbits," but I'd need to know rather more about the culture of the natives of Flores to be able to rule it out, either.

"When my colleague Gert van den Bergh first heard these stories a decade ago, which several of the villages around the volcano recount with only very minor changes in detail, he thought them no better than leprechaun tales until we unearthed the Hobbit. (I much prefer Ebu as the name of our find but my colleague Mike Morwood was insistent on Hobbit.)

The anatomical details in the legends are equally fascinating. They are described as about a metre tall, with long hair, pot bellies, ears that slightly stick out, a slightly awkward gait, and longish arms and fingers - both confirmed by our further finds this year.

They [the Ebu Gogo] murmured at each other and could repeat words [spoken by villagers] verbatim. For example, to 'here's some food', they would reply 'here's some food'. They could climb slender-girthed trees but, here's the rub, were never seen holding stone tools or anything similar, whereas we have lots of sophisticated artefacts in the H. floresiensis levels at Liang Bua. That's the only inconsistency with the Liang Bua evidence."


http://www.primates.com/ebu-gogo/

LAL
15th February 2006, 04:45 AM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti)



The article (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/pf/041025-2_pf.html).

Thanks for posting that. I thought it had been archived forever.

I'll try to find the explanation of Patty's hips. It's probably in Krantz. It has to do with the size of the infant's head. There's no need for a wide passage for birth in a biped that doesn't deliver large-headed infants, therefore the hips are relatively narrower, more "male-like".

I had four kids with no noticeable change in pelvic width postpartum and no particular weight gain. I left the hospital in a size 8 sheath after the third was born.

Increase in girth seems to have more to do with age and strawberry yogurt, in my case, IMO.

Humans come in short, tall, chunky, thin, blonde, black, red-haired............I might think they're all in one highly variable species if I hadn't concluded that because of all these conflicting descriptions humans don't exist.

UrsulaV
15th February 2006, 06:18 AM
It's an interesting notion, LAL, but those descriptions of large eared, pot-bellied long-armed short guys, causing mischief and snacking on the odd infant, could just as well be those of European kobolds or goblins (and while there are few realms in which I'd claim any expertise, I've done enough RPG illustrations to have a pretty good handle on How To Draw A Goblin!*) and don't appear to have any notable diversions from the standard "little people in the woods" myths that a lot of cultures cook up.

Which is not to say that their legends might not have a basis in the hobbits, but I don't think there's anything like conclusive proof yet, nor do I think that a mere reading of the mythology can provide such proof--myth is a tangled web and I simply don't think we can call anything in it reliable fact without significant corroborating evidence--otherwise, why these and not the Migard Serpent, why sasquatch and not the Great Muskrat, why mkolo-mbembe and not the Native American lodge with walls made of wild vaginas?**

We'd need to know, at bare minimum, that the culture's oral tradition has roots extending into the period when the Hobbits were alive, and I don't think we have enough data about their range and span yet to say. Particularly because it would be so cool if it were true, we need to be extra suspicious of it--it's so easy to see what we WANT to see there, out of the sheer coolness of wee little hominids, maaan!

I think more study of both hobbits and the native culture are called for before conclusions are drawn about what must have given rise to any particular myth.


*All those student loans, alas... :)

**Y'know, while this is an actual myth I've read in the past, I'm bowing out of providing reference, because some things, I am just plain not willing to Google...

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 06:36 AM
Should I bring up dragons?
Big, flying, fire breathing lizards.

They pretty much had to be real with all of the documentation of them, right?
All of the myths, legends, stories, statues, and pictures mean that these beasties had to be actual living beings, right? People wouldn't make up something like breathing fire, or flight, would they? They had to have actually seen dragons, or something very close, didn't they?

Today's lizards have just lost a couple of talents and gotten smaller, right?

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 06:47 AM
The feet are as theorized by Krantz and Meldrum, with a more protruding and broad heel than humans.


Except when the prints have a wide ball and proportionally narrow heel, like many Sas prints do..

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 06:59 AM
Why would so many people, in so many different parts of the world, over such a long period of time, describe, draw, and sculpt basically the same sort of beastie? Why would they name places based on these beasties?

Who would win in a fight? A dragon or sasquatch?

LAL
15th February 2006, 07:02 AM
I too would like to see a real animal whose thigh fur dissapears up into a butt-diaper. Seriously - you can see the seam between the butt and the thigh in that animated gif. I really don't understand how ANYONE can take that seriously as evidence of a real animal.

If you're referring to the "hip-wader lines", they're likely tufts of hair. they disappear in a few frames.
The butt on Patty seems more human than gorilla.

The "enlarged wrists" could be hair on the wrist, puffed up a bit from digging for food or whatever. Or the hair could simply be longer in that area, like we've seen on some gorilla photos - - I'm not convinced it has anything to do with quadrupedalism.

LAL, Giganto, Huntster, etc. have grasped the point however, in that EVERY "suit flaw" that Dfoot claimed HE saw on Patty has been demonstrated to exist on REAL living animals. In the case of the "thigh pads", they seem only visible in certain frames, even when the angles/distances do not change significantly. This suggests that lighting/shadow or matted hair is more likely the cause than some sort of padding.

I agree with Dfoot concerning the thigh area. It looks suspicious in a few frames, but then as the subject continues to walk, the thing that looks like a bulging pad, simply changes shape a couple of times and then disappears.

In the animation Primateer posted at the beginning of this thread, you can see that the "bulging pads" that Dfoot is seeing are probably just a few tufts of hair.

There really is no bulging pad at all, really. The thigh seems to have a natural contour to it, other than the matted hair area. Just a few frames later, this feature all but disappears and we can see again that the subject's thigh area has a normal looking contour.

And once again in his assertions, Dfoot has zeroed in on a "suspect area" in which there are DARK OBJECTS IN THE BACKROUND THAT INTERSECT THE SUBJECT, thus adding to the jutting out thigh pad illusion. -soarwing

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=340 (scroll down)

How many here have actually seen a good copy (digitalized version counts) of the film rather than some blurry version on TV or only the stills, enlargements and gifs on the Internet? Hands, please.

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 07:05 AM
Thanks for posting that. I thought it had been archived forever.

I'll try to find the explanation of Patty's hips. It's probably in Krantz. It has to do with the size of the infant's head. There's no need for a wide passage for birth in a biped that doesn't deliver large-headed infants, therefore the hips are relatively narrower, more "male-like".

Funny.. Huntster is claiming Patty's hips are wide ..

Of course, most of us understand that ' big butt ' doesn't mean ' wide hips ', in proportion to the torso and/or shoulders...

We don't need an explanation from Krantz.. We understand about the proportions of the human female pelvis compared to other animals.

Arkan_Wolfshade
15th February 2006, 07:05 AM
...
I cannot stress enough that the fat from wild game is not marbled in the meat (unless we are talking about deer that graze in farmer’s fields) like domestic beef. It is found between the meat and the hide, where it provides insulation to supplement the animal’s fur. It is thickest in the fall. I’ve seen the fat on a moose’s rump four inches thick. Bears commonly have fat on the rump that thick or thicker.

On the same animal, one will find very little fat (maybe an inch thick) on the upper legs or breast.
...

This does bring up an interesting question (for me at least). Assuming for the moment that sasquatch would be a member of the primate family; how does fat distribution occur among other primates that live in climates that have similar seasons? (mountain gorillas, Japanese snow monkeys, etc)

edit: because spelling monkey in the plural form is hard

UrsulaV
15th February 2006, 07:09 AM
Who would win in a fight? A dragon or sasquatch?

Depends on whether the sasquatch suit is made of flame-retardant material or not, I'd imagine...

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 07:11 AM
Where in the world is the evidence that sasquatch heels protrude more?

Is this based on the skookum "heel", or on Krantz' skeletal fabrications from copies of casts? We know Krantz made up a more central leg bone location, which would make the heel protrude more in the back, but he just made that up out of thin air. He had nothing but his own imagination to back up his claims.

LAL
15th February 2006, 07:19 AM
It's an interesting notion, LAL, but those descriptions of large eared, pot-bellied long-armed short guys, causing mischief and snacking on the odd infant, could just as well be those of European kobolds or goblins (and while there are few realms in which I'd claim any expertise, I've done enough RPG illustrations to have a pretty good handle on How To Draw A Goblin!*) and don't appear to have any notable diversions from the standard "little people in the woods" myths that a lot of cultures cook up.



More interesting yet is a notion Captain Cook's crew might have brought tales of the kobold and goblins to the Flores natives, who, once they learned English, immediately incorported these tales into their traditional lore instead of saying "These guys are nuts." Did similar tales emerge after visits by Europeans or was this unique to Flores?

The co-discoverer thinks the "Hobbits" may have been alive in Cook's time and even later. Where is it written that everything "prehistoric" has to be extinct?

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 07:34 AM
How many here have actually seen a good copy (digitalized version counts) of the film rather than some blurry version on TV or only the stills, enlargements and gifs on the Internet? Hands, please.

There is no such thing as a good copy available to the public.

I hope you are not talking about LMS.. Making a digitalized copy of a blurry film doe not enhance it in any way...

A good copy would probably blow it out of the water to a greater extent than what we are able to do .

A few more seconds at the end, where BH takes the mask off, would work wonders..;)

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 07:48 AM
Yeah, blowing up an old blurry film and then digitizing it will not let you see anything any better.

It will let you see things that probably aren't there, though.

LAL
15th February 2006, 07:55 AM
Should I bring up dragons?
Big, flying, fire breathing lizards.

They pretty much had to be real with all of the documentation of them, right?
All of the myths, legends, stories, statues, and pictures mean that these beasties had to be actual living beings, right? People wouldn't make up something like breathing fire, or flight, would they? They had to have actually seen dragons, or something very close, didn't they?

Today's lizards have just lost a couple of talents and gotten smaller, right?

Bill seems to have forgotten the article I Googled up on the origins of the European dragon. We've already discussed the Chinese dragon, the cyclops.......What does it take for the human imagination to add wings to a dragon that may have been inspired by a fossil? It is no more accurate to say no myths are based on reality than it is to say all are.

Myths usually have a strong element of teaching. Some American Indian Sasquatch stories seem to fit the bill when the animal delivers a message (as does any other animal) to the people, but the modern accounts, such as of seeing one cross the road, or as the psychologist, Dr. Johnson did, while relieving himself, hardly seem to fill the bill. So why would such "myths" persist in the first place?

Bill mentioned Rant Mullens earlier. Since he has me filtered he must not have seen my post about that. Rant (and friend) disliked being called a "hick" by an investigator and carved feet just to try to fool them. The story didn't say whether or not they were fooled. Rant also claimed he carved feet for Ray Wallace.

The suggestion that these guys (with a little help from Ivan Marx, of course) were responsible for thousands of tracks found in two countries over decades is, frankly, on of the dumbest I have ever seen.

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 08:07 AM
For instance, in the frames just before Patty's right leg disappears behind the stump, I can see what looks like her calf muscle bulging out. The only problem is, it looks out of place and it bulges out mid-stride, way before Patty's foot gets near the ground. If I just let the film run, it looks just like her calf muscle working. When I look closer and pay attention, it appears the "calf muscle" is working backwards for this particular stride. Well, to me anyway. :)

Is it just a calf muscle working? If so, it's really bulging out there.
Is it just an artifact from a lot of processing? Could be.
Is it part of a suit flapping or coming loose? Could be.
Is it my imagination? I don't think so since I can see it in every version of the film.

UrsulaV
15th February 2006, 08:56 AM
The co-discoverer thinks the "Hobbits" may have been alive in Cook's time and even later. Where is it written that everything "prehistoric" has to be extinct?

Another interesting notion, but one requiring far more supporting data.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:29 AM
]...And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?...

Only one: the giant squid.

How could I be so forgetful?

Two creatures of cryptolzoology/myth have been established as real:

The giant squid, and the gorilla.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:35 AM
But... didn't you just compare squatch to humans, regarding the "diaper butt" appearance, a page or so ago? Why is it OK for you to make that comparison on this topic, but not OK for Correa Neto?....

My objection to Correa Neto was his/her blanket "no, gorillas and bears don't count".

Comparing sasquatch bipedalism is naturally compared to humans, since humans are bipedal, and bears and gorillas are not.

Comparing fat deposits to humans (while simultaneously excluding other wild animals) is an immature denialist strategy, not honest debate.

...would you be OK with another comparison to humans if it included one to gorillas as well...

If it was appropriate, of course.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:47 AM
Could you please show me exactly where I twisted the original statement?

This claim of your is quite simple to defend, if you can.

If you can't, remove it.

My post, in it's entirety:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto :Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?


Twisting and spinning again, I see.

The quote was well linked to both the entire article and Wikipedia's entry on it's originator:

Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Now, can we go back and discuss that, or are you and Diogenes going to continue to twist his statement by pulling the word "myth" out of context?


It will not be pulled. Again, if you have a problem with my post, take it up with a moderator. That's what they're there for.

I have respect for authority. If a moderator determines I screwed up, I will conform, even if I respectfully challenge their determination within the confines of the law/regulations/guidelines.

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 09:48 AM
For instance, in the frames just before Patty's right leg disappears behind the stump, I can see what looks like her calf muscle bulging out. The only problem is, it looks out of place and it bulges out mid-stride, way before Patty's foot gets near the ground. If I just let the film run, it looks just like her calf muscle working. When I look closer and pay attention, it appears the "calf muscle" is working backwards for this particular stride. Well, to me anyway. :)

Is it just a calf muscle working? If so, it's really bulging out there.
Is it just an artifact from a lot of processing? Could be.
Is it part of a suit flapping or coming loose? Could be.
Is it my imagination? I don't think so since I can see it in every version of the film. Good catch.. I haven't noticed that before.. I'll have to take a closer look..

Kenny 10 Bellys
15th February 2006, 09:51 AM
...and let us not forget the Ceolocanth either, a genuine 100% honest to goodness prehistoric survivor from the very depths of the ocean. Yet they found it, proved it and have even to a large extent mapped out their distribution and filmed them in the wild.

Not a myth, I grant you, but still an amazing creature shown to exist that no one knew anything about. Kinda makes finding a large, widespread population of wookies seem reasonable and easy by comparison, yet still nothing is found.

Oh, and while I'm back on this nonsense, the bit about that EVERY "suit flaw" that Dfoot claimed HE saw on Patty has been demonstrated to exist on REAL living animals", did he ever find ALL those faults on ONE creature? I think the public should be told.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:58 AM
Man, you MUST go to an eye doctor.

Seriously.

I actually have spent quite a bit of time with eye doctors, especially after being shot in the head. My eyesight returned even better than 20/20, but as I age I find the need for reading glasses much more regularly.

Like I posted, I even put my reading glasses on to review what you see.

I see lots of anomolies in the PG film, but instead of pointing out things as proof of a hoax, I look for signs of a hoax, and signs of reality.

I still think the film depicts a real, live animal, because I don't believe that is a man in a suit. There have been many "men in suits" offered as pictures or films of a sasquatch. This is the only one that defies attempts to show a man in a suit.

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 10:10 AM
My eyesight returned even better than 20/20 ......

How does that work ? Do you see things that are not visible to others ?

That would explain a lot..

Huntster
15th February 2006, 10:16 AM
Cultural -or social- anthropologists quite often "fall in love" with the culture they study.....

Of course that happens. That's what "woo" is, isn't it?: Falling in love with your views/ideology/opinion/statements?

I suggest that Nelson didn't let his experience woo him. He clearly states that he didn't loose his agnosticism. He ends his book with this:

...I stood beneath the tall timber and watched a raven fly above me, vanishing and reappearing as it passed behind the treetops. And I wondered what, or who, it really was. Certainty is for those who have learned and believed only one truth. Where I came from, the raven is just a bird - an interesting and beautiful one perhaps, even an intelligent one - but it is a bird, and that is all. But where I am now, the raven is many other things first, its form and existence as a bird almost the least significant of its qualities. It is a person and a power, God in a clown's suit, incarnation of a once-omnipotent spirit. The raven sees, hears, understands, reveals ... determines.

What is the raven? Bird-watchers and biologists know. Koyukon elders and their children who listen know. But those like me, who have heard and accepted them both, are left to watch and wonder. The raven tucked a wing and went topsy-turvy in the sky, then flew away toward the river, its resonating croaks pouring down into the forest. I turned awkwardly away, almost fearing a question: Was it laughing?

Nelson has exposed with that statement that which so frutstrates me with many on this forum. He does not explicitly deny that which his Koyukon teachers revealed to him, nor does he reject that which he learned from his roots in Western science. He reports what he has learned, and is left in wonder.

He doesn't even form his own pompous theories, and then spends the rest of his life defending them. He is clearly too wise for that.

Too bad there aren't more Richard Nelsons out there.

...I worked many years in Northern Brazil -Amazonia included. I stayed in the field for at least 20 days each month. I am reasonably well aware of Brazilian lore (Native Brazilian included). Some studies I read are very interesting, and I had the opportunity to help people doing some also (much less than I would like to). This does not mean I think the mapinguari, caipora, boitata, etc. are real beasts....

Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

...There MAY be a real basis for bigfoot myth. But this basis MAY NOT be a real unknown primate lurking in North America's forests....

That is correct.

And that basis MIGHT be because a real, uncatalogued (not unknown) primate may be lurking in North America's forests.

...In the saquatch case, it would be nice to check:
What the original legend says?
What parts of it are considered as "usefull"?...

In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist.

The Koyukon, apparently, aren't into denial. They may not have the origin of the woodsmen perfect (and I can't say that they don't, either), but at least they're leaps and bounds ahead of Western science, which is largely still in denial.

...From what I see, only a small part of the myth was used, and interpreted according to the cultural background of the interpreter, completely detached from the original.

That's the part I like the best.

Take the good and work with it.

Set the bad aside for future reference, but don't waste a whole lot of time on it unless evidence comes in to bring it into relevance.

It beats "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Huntster
15th February 2006, 10:18 AM
Edited after completely reading the cited post.

Shooting from the hip, here.

I tend to do that when the bullets fill the air.

Hitch
15th February 2006, 10:20 AM
Never mind, missed a page break.

I editted out my post.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 10:27 AM
Should I bring up dragons?
Big, flying, fire breathing lizards.....

Of course. We wouldn't expect any less from you, sir.

Throw the point to the left, or the right. Spin it on it's head. Throw in some loose nuts and bolts.

That won't change the fact that western science found 1 meter tall bipedal skeletons in an area that is rife with aboriginal legends of 1 meter tall bipedal, apelike creatures that are still running around in the forest.

...They pretty much had to be real with all of the documentation of them, right?...

Maybe. It's my position that myths like that often have a basis in truth.

...All of the myths, legends, stories, statues, and pictures mean that these beasties had to be actual living beings, right?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.


...People wouldn't make up something like breathing fire, or flight, would they?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

...They had to have actually seen dragons, or something very close, didn't they?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

...Today's lizards have just lost a couple of talents and gotten smaller, right?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

We won't know unless and until we find some evidence to support or destroy the legends.

And we won't find that evidence if we don't look.

And we won't look if everybody denies the possibilities with pure opinion and prejudice.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Huntster :
My eyesight returned even better than 20/20 ......
How does that work ? Do you see things that are not visible to others ?

That would explain a lot..

I don't know. I didn't query the eye doctor (because I didn't think I'd understand his answer, anyway), and I have no knowledge or skill in optometry.

Perhaps if you're knowledgable about eyes, you can explain it to me.

If not, perhaps you should go to your eye doctor. They can work wonders today, you know.

Hellbound
15th February 2006, 11:41 AM
Actually, you can have vision greater than 20/20. The scale is how your vision at 20 feet compares to the average level of detail seen at 20 feet. I never remember which number goes on top*, but as an example 20/200 vision means the level of detail you see at 20 feet is comparable to what the average person sees at 200 feet. My vision (with my glasses) is actually 20/15, meaning I see as much detail at 20 feet as the average sees at 15.

Of course, this is a rather subjective scale, and questionable in it's accuracy. Among optometrists, they'll look at sphere, cylinder, and axis numbers, and you'll see measurements such at "-2.50" or "-3.75". These are more accurate measures of the eyes function, with 0.00 being normal sight.

*-As I said, I may have it backwards (confusing 20/200 with 200/20), but the main point is correct.

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 11:46 AM
Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either.

You still can't really see anything in the PGF smaller than about 2". :D

Aepervius
15th February 2006, 11:49 AM
I don't know. I didn't query the eye doctor (because I didn't think I'd understand his answer, anyway), and I have no knowledge or skill in optometry.

Perhaps if you're knowledgable about eyes, you can explain it to me.

If not, perhaps you should go to your eye doctor. They can work wonders today, you know.


As far as the explanation I got from somebody is correct (he could have told me bunk) this go this way : the eyeball lens focus is never quite centered 100% on the retina. It is a bit before or a bit after by a small measure. Now for somebody having 20/20 this means they are focussing within a certain distance -d to +d of the retina position (0) , but this still make a normal/clear eyesight. Having less than -d in negatif make you presbyte or more than +d short sighted. Now the test are made so that you are with a range of d where you can consider you can see everything reasonably well and can't really detect anything wrong. But if you are really even nearer the retina (or accidentally spot on) then you can see "better" than somebody at the end of the range (near d). Thus some people having "more" than 20/20.

Now this could be completly bunkun, but as I relate to my optic course, I can imagine this to be correct , that focussing 100% on the retina probably never happens in a growing human, but this d is probably very small that the difference between 20/20 and more make NO FREAKING difference on a badly digitalised film...

It would be nice to know if this is correct or not from a biologist...

PS: I am shortsighted , but frankly, I see the same detail on the flap, and my first thougth was "looks like a costume". But hey, opinion are just that...

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 11:54 AM
The same "calf flap" frame from the MK Davis animated gif.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 02:04 PM
Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either....

I like the way Nelson described "seeing" in "Make Prayers to the Raven":

...Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see. In other words, my Koyukon teachers had learned through their own traditions about dimensions in nature that I, as a Euro-American, had either not learned to perceive or had been explicitly taught do not exist...

If you have already determined that sasquatches don't exist, nothing will convince you otherwise.

If you are open to the possibility, you can judge each piece of evidence prudently: thus the Freeman film can be suspect, the "Cat Chaser" film is a hoax, and the PG film is quite convincing.

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 02:10 PM
Actually, you can have vision greater than 20/20. The scale is how your vision at 20 feet compares to the average level of detail seen at 20 feet. I never remember which number goes on top*, but as an example 20/200 vision means the level of detail you see at 20 feet is comparable to what the average person sees at 200 feet. My vision (with my glasses) is actually 20/15, meaning I see as much detail at 20 feet as the average sees at 15.

Of course, this is a rather subjective scale, and questionable in it's accuracy. Among optometrists, they'll look at sphere, cylinder, and axis numbers, and you'll see measurements such at "-2.50" or "-3.75". These are more accurate measures of the eyes function, with 0.00 being normal sight.

*-As I said, I may have it backwards (confusing 20/200 with 200/20), but the main point is correct.


That's good to know Huntsman.. Another myth that I had fallen prey to..

My snide remark was out of order Huntster..
I apologize...

Correa Neto
15th February 2006, 02:17 PM
My post, in it's entirety:



It will not be pulled. Again, if you have a problem with my post, take it up with a moderator. That's what they're there for.

I have respect for authority. If a moderator determines I screwed up, I will conform, even if I respectfully challenge their determination within the confines of the law/regulations/guidelines.

Huntster, again, show me where I distorted your -or anybody ele's- statements.

Or its just regular behavior of some footers to make claims and accusations and later not being able to back them with evidence?

Skeptical Greg
15th February 2006, 02:18 PM
Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either.

You still can't really see anything in the PGF smaller than about 2". :D

Keep in mind; 2" is the ' optimistic ' lower limit ..

Due to focus, lighting and movement, it's avery forgiving lower limit...

However, this film has some very forgiving optical qualities..

Muscle movement, eyes,teeth, fingers & etc somehow overcome the limitations that unnatural looking lines, bulges folds and flaps fall victim to...

It's a special ' Sasquatch ' physics that us skeptics can't understand...

Correa Neto
15th February 2006, 02:47 PM
Of course that happens. That's what "woo" is, isn't it?: Falling in love with your views/ideology/opinion/statements?

No. A passionate defense of positions does not necessarily involves poor critical thinking skills. This is woo redux-> poor critical thinking skills.

...snip...Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

Do you?
I hope they are not like those presented so far...

That is correct.

And that basis MIGHT be because a real, uncatalogued (not unknown) primate may be lurking in North America's forests.

Yes, MIGHT be. But this is highly unlikely.

In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist. ...snip...

What have you done?
You picked up a part of the legend. The second step was to interpretate it according to your cultural background, completely removing this piece from its original context. Why?

Because it fits with your view.

All the parts that you considered to have a poor fit were removed and are no longer considered.

For example:
1)The original sasquatch description, how is it originally? How close it is to today's bigfoot myth?
2)It is said that similar myths can be found among Native Americans from other areas. How exactly are these descriptions? Are they really similar? The descriptions say, of the Wendigo and the sasquatch are really so similar that one can say they are the same mythical creature?

And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

Huntster
15th February 2006, 05:19 PM
No. A passionate defense of positions does not necessarily involves poor critical thinking skills. This is woo redux-> poor critical thinking skills....

The definition of “woo” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=woo):

1. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.
2.
a. To seek to achieve; try to gain.
b. To tempt or invite.
3. To entreat, solicit, or importune.

v. intr.
To court a woman.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
...snip...Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

Do you?
I hope they are not like those presented so far...

Your “hope” is yours to enjoy and “woo”.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist. ...snip...

What have you done?
You picked up a part of the legend. The second step was to interpretate it according to your cultural background, completely removing this piece from its original context. Why?

Because it fits with your view.

That is completely incorrect. I read Nelson’s account of what he was taught, I reflected on his words, I appreciated the fact that these aboriginal people recognized the fact that these creatures exist, I spat at the thought that western science is to busy playing ideological games to look into the matter, and I set the Koyukon interpretation of where these creatures came from in the back of my mind for further, future reflection.

I removed nothing, I disregarded nothing, I appreciated it all.

I SIMPLY APPRECIATED MOST THE FACT THAT THESE SIMPLE PEOPLE ARE MORE WISE THAN THOSE IN MODERN SCIENCE.

...All the parts that you considered to have a poor fit were removed and are no longer considered....

Incorrect.

In the desperate hope that you can understand the English language in it’s written form, I will hereby stress the following:

I do not reject the Koyukon view of the origin or history of these creatures, and I fully and completely appreciate their acceptance of these creatures, and abhor modern science’s rejection of the same.

Comprende?

For example:
1)The original sasquatch description, how is it originally? How close it is to today's bigfoot myth?
2)It is said that similar myths can be found among Native Americans from other areas. How exactly are these descriptions? Are they really similar? The descriptions say, of the Wendigo and the sasquatch are really so similar that one can say they are the same mythical creature?

And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

Are these nuts and bolts (werewolves) thrown into the gears intended to merge the common aspects of aboriginal legends with European legends, or to discredit any one thing?

UrsulaV
15th February 2006, 05:20 PM
And if the answer is "yes, because the myths describe wild hairy men that live in the forests", I will have to say its not enough. Why? Because "wild hairy men that live in the forests" can very well describe werewolves, for example. And werewolves are not supposed to be bigfeet or to live in PNW...

It could also describe the "Al," a shaggy animal-man with fiery eyes and iron teeth and brass fingernails believed to live in the woods in Armenia, who caused infants to be born blind and could only be fended off if the woman slept surrounded by cold iron.

Or some variations of the Jinni, described as part-wolf, part-hyena, who walked upright, and were shaggy and beastlike, and could only be seen by roosters and donkeys, who were sensitive to their prescence. (Has anybody tried hunting sasquatches with roosters?)

Or the leshy, who wore mostly his very shaggy beard and lived in the woods and was teeny on the edges of the forest and huge in the center (hmm, that would explain some things.)

And that's just five minutes spent with children's books within reach of my computer, and I didn't get past "L."

Hairy man myths are one of the classics. It's just an easy jump--"Hey, there's like people! That live....um...in the woods. Like the animals. Actually they're part animal! Yeah! And...uh...they don't wear clothes. No, shut up, they don't get cold, they've got a lot of hair. Yeah, like your weird uncle kinda hair. You could lose change on that guy's back, yes, I know. Shut up, kid, you wanna hear this story or not...?"

Yeah_Right
15th February 2006, 05:20 PM
Admittedly I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so, since the idea of Bigfoot has always intrigued me. I do think the P&G film is more than likely a hoax, but I do wonder what it is that Heironimous would admit to being the guy in the suit? Did he have something against Patterson and Gimlin?

Huntster
15th February 2006, 05:46 PM
...(Has anybody tried hunting sasquatches with roosters?)...

Not that I know of.

I haven't hunted for a sasquatch with anything. I'm too busy hunting moose, caribou, bear, and deer, and having a tough enough time keeping my success rate for those species above 75%. A sasquatch is clearly too rare for me to waste my time trying, and I'm not geared up properly to try it in prime sasquatch habitat.

But, I figure, as long as I'm after the moose, caribou, bear, and deer, I'll keep my eyes peeled for bipedal apes. And I won't be armed with a rooster.

I sure hope folks don't walk around these woods in ape suits.

Under the potential circumstances of that scenario, I'm a believer in the "Three S's":

Shoot
Shovel
Shutup

LTC8K6
15th February 2006, 06:21 PM
I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so

You have my sympathy.... :)

Dfoot
15th February 2006, 06:58 PM
Remember HUNTSTER that I've tried to explain this (but no one seems to care). I know and worked with the creature suit designers who gave that red ape suit to the BBC producer to use. He didn't have enough money to pay them to recreate anything. They gave him the red ape suit to use right off the rack specifically because it didn't resemble Patty at all. That was the point. The idea (of this particular producer) seemed to be that if you used the same filming techniques as Patterson you could make anything hairy walking along look as good as what is shown.

To you and I this isn't true. We've studied the film more closely than that. But believe me... I know Vulich and his guys. They could make something far better than what Patterson used (a simple modified gorilla suit of the time period with caveman face). There's only one problem... they are pros and expect their pay. Otherwise forget it. They could care less and think it's all very funny.

Me on the other hand... I am a Bigfoot Buff. I'll take up the challenge and give it a go - even though I'm no creature suit artist at all - as soon as my schedule permits. The suit guys have told me that it's no big deal and from what I've experienced first hand that is certainly true.

So remember... when you see the guy in the BBC project bending his ape foot (that looks like a hand) it's not because he thinks he's "recreated" Patty. He's only showing you what a rubber foot does when you bend it. He had no idea anyone would ever post his picture on a web page and use it to proclaim that Hollywood cannot recreate the incredible Pattyiness.

IN THE COMP BELOW... is a breast I made by simply squeezing some silicone from a tube into a plastic mold I threw together.

Also, check out the unnatural shoulder pad on the creature from IT and the type of thigh padding that goes under "Patty's" skin overlaid on "her". This was typical of the 1960's suits.

The two "gorillas" arguing have the same line in the back of their necks as Patty does for a good reason; because they are also suits.

This is the truth-- Whether there are Sasquatch out there or not, I'm sorry to say, Patterson never filmed one.

- Dfoot :o

Z
15th February 2006, 08:37 PM
Duckbilled platypus.

I'd say that goes in there with the giant squid and the gorilla, does it not?

:D

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:03 PM
Duckbilled platypus.

I'd say that goes in there with the giant squid and the gorilla, does it not?

:D

Yup.

I just know there are a whole bunch more, but they aren't coming to mind.

How about the narwhal?

Flange Desire
15th February 2006, 09:12 PM
I SIMPLY APPRECIATED MOST THE FACT THAT THESE SIMPLE PEOPLE ARE MORE WISE THAN THOSE IN MODERN SCIENCE.

Bolding and capitalising your words does not alter the fact that they are just your opinion, unsupported here by any evidence.

In an earlier post of yours, you stated that reports indicated that hunting dogs learnt to avoid bigfoot. But you provided nothing to support that either.

My opinion is that it is all ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP!

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:19 PM
Remember HUNTSTER that I've tried to explain this (but no one seems to care). I know and worked with the creature suit designers who gave that red ape suit to the BBC producer to use. He didn't have enough money to pay them to recreate anything. They gave him the red ape suit to use right off the rack specifically because it didn't resemble Patty at all. That was the point. The idea (of this particular producer) seemed to be that if you used the same filming techniques as Patterson you could make anything hairy walking along look as good as what is shown....

Well, my opinion is that they failed miserably, because that sorry figure they filmed doesn't even surpass many of the other half-assed hoax attempts produced by Billie Bob and Goober back behind the barn.

What you are describing is a total failure on the part of the BBC to give a good attempt at outperforming or even trying to approach similar realism with the PG film because of:

1) not as much budget as a rodeo rider, or
2) a simple inter-industry, inter-organizational budget struggle, or
3) a complete lack of consideration by one of the world's noteworthy networks.

I'm not sure which is worse for the BBC; thinking that all the their programming is approached in this way, or realizing that they'd lend their name to a production like this by reviewing it, then broadcasting it.

...To you and I this isn't true. We've studied the film more closely than that. But believe me... I know Vulich and his guys. They could make something far better than what Patterson used (a simple modified gorilla suit of the time period with caveman face). There's only one problem... they are pros and expect their pay. Otherwise forget it. They could care less and think it's all very funny....

Now you're sounding good. I would hope that the movie industry's best could surpass the PG film, even if the PG film subject is a real, live sasquatch.

But it hasn't happened.

Don't tell me Vulich and his guys are so expensive that such a production wouldn't pay their fee and return a handsome profit.

So what's the reproduction?

...Me on the other hand... I am a Bigfoot Buff. I'll take up the challenge and give it a go - even though I'm no creature suit artist at all - as soon as my schedule permits. The suit guys have told me that it's no big deal and from what I've experienced first hand that is certainly true....

I've said it before, you work at your own pace. Don't hurry for me or Diogenes. Take your time and make it good. Even though you're not a creature builder on the level of some of your friends, I suspect you should be able to impress us beyond that Patterson cowpoke.

I appreciate your effort to actually do something. That beats my work.

Huntster
15th February 2006, 09:23 PM
Bolding and capitalising your words does not alter the fact that they are just your opinion, unsupported here by any evidence.....[/B]

Correct.

However, for folks who seem to skim-read, or have other trouble with comprehension, my hope is that THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS WILL CATCH THEIR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION.

...In an earlier post of yours, you stated that reports indicated that hunting dogs learnt to avoid bigfoot. But you provided nothing to support that either....

Earlier post?

Like, weeks ago?

You're not even skimming, are you?

...My opinion is that it is all [B]ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP!

Duly noted.

Dfoot
16th February 2006, 12:17 AM
Well, my opinion is that they failed miserably, because that sorry figure they filmed doesn't even surpass many of the other half-assed hoax attempts produced by Billie Bob and Goober back behind the barn.

What you are describing is a total failure on the part of the BBC to give a good attempt at outperforming or even trying to approach similar realism with the PG film because of:

1) not as much budget as a rodeo rider, or

HUNSTER: It's a guy named CHRIS PACKHAM who sold his production to the BBC for broadcast. No... he couldn't afford to pay the Vulich guys to take time off from BUFFY to make a suit for him when they were already so busy that they had to cannabalize suits at times from various episodes.

Patterson "borrowed" $700 from VILMA RADFORD. That's $4000 according to the inflation calculator in today's dollars. (Forget the millionaire brother-in-law partner who made a mint off the flick for himself) Yes... Patterson could afford to have a guy rent him a gorilla suit and head/helmet complete with fake breasts.



Now you're sounding good. I would hope that the movie industry's best could surpass the PG film, even if the PG film subject is a real, live sasquatch.

But it hasn't happened.

God I hope you are joking. The PG film simply shows the blurred and shaky images of Bob Heironimus in an ordinary modified gorilla suit. On the BFF I've already shown you suits (in focus) from the 1930's that are as good as that one.


Don't tell me Vulich and his guys are so expensive that such a production wouldn't pay their fee and return a handsome profit.

Yes... Packham couldn't pay and agreed to use the red ape suit that they were not using. Any of the suits in the background you can clearly see in the show would have been closer to the PG film than that one. They simply didn't care. It's just another gorilla suit with a latex caveman face on the front of the helmet to them. Nothing special. I've shown you already how it works on the BFF.



I've said it before, you work at your own pace. Don't hurry for me or Diogenes. Take your time and make it good. Even though you're not a creature builder on the level of some of your friends, I suspect you should be able to impress us beyond that Patterson cowpoke.

You know I'm busy working right now. I'm hoping in April I'll get a break. Till then I can stop by and post some pics -- but it doesn't seem to matter too much.

There seems to be some strange hold that this gorilla suit has on people. With Patterson dead and Gimlin backed into a corner and vouching for it people can write their own conclusions - no matter how wrong they may be. Patty Patterson's own brother says Heironimus wore the suit. Patterson's partner in crime, DeAtley, says he participated in a hoax and regrets it. Patty Patterson has already been found lying in an attempt to get out of paying Vilma Radford for the loan to Roger. And then there is the problem of the suit looking like a suit and nothing else.

Yet it doesn't seem to matter. Too much emotional investment in this idea of "Patty" being real has driven some to lose their grip on what's real. Patterson is a more successful hoaxer after his death without any effort.

I appreciate your effort to actually do something. That beats my work.

Really, all I've done is take a couple of Halloween masks from the 60's and glue them together and then stuck them onto my dummy wearing a padded-out wookie hair suit. It took less than the weekend to make. Yet that was just as good as "Patty".

BELOW: You should be able to see that "Patty" has a butt pad like the photo next to her.

The guy up top is 7 and half feet tall. That's not his skin. That's just a suit Vulich and the boys put on him. Trust me, it's a lot more involved than a hairy gorilla suit to make AND it's actually in focus.:cool:

- Dfoot

Yeah_Right
16th February 2006, 05:07 AM
You have my sympathy.... :)

It's not that bad, I've certainly learned more about bigfoot myth in what I have read thus far than anything I have seen on tv over the years. LAL and Huntsters posts are entertaining to say the least. I saw the P&G film on my comp and I forgot how far Gimlin was from Herionimous. Yeah I said it. Anyway I cannot really believe that anyone could believe Bigfoots existence from such an incredibly absurd piece of cinema. I feel emberassed for the experts like Krantz and Meldrum who have utterly wasted their time with this nonsense. And really the suit doesn't look that impressive so I am pretty sure that it could be made in the mid sixties or any other time for that matter.

LTC8K6
16th February 2006, 05:25 AM
Krantz and Meldrum put their own blinders on, so no sympathy from me.

I have learned more about bigfoot believers than about bigfoot.

Orthoptera
16th February 2006, 07:28 AM
Yup.

I just know there are a whole bunch more, but they aren't coming to mind.

How about the narwhal?

Yes, those are animals that were thought unlikely, but later verified: I think the Komodo dragon, okapi, giant panda, Kodiak bear, etc. also fit there. I should have been clearer when I wrote

And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?

I was specifically referring to Heuvelmans and his following (I believe he coined the term 'cryptozoology'), which coalesced around 1960. The thing is, I can't recall a single animal that has been produced from his "follow the rumors" concept; all the new species recently discovered have either been found by accident or described by scientific expeditions poking around new places. I can't think of any sea serpents, surviving dinosaurs, bipedal primates, giant birds, alien cats, chupacabras, etc. that have been proposed, chased, and subsequently verified. I think it's a given we will find new and astounding marine life, since the deep ocean has hardly been explored. I'm sure even large quadrapeds remain undiscovered in the more remote areas of the earth. But they never seem to be the ones proposed by cryptozoologists, or indeed found by them. Please tell me if I have forgotten any.

The gorilla story is to my mind an anti-bigfoot example. The gorilla was news only to the first European explorers; they were not mysterious or legendary creatures to Africans living in gorilla country, who considered them agricultural pests and could easily provide De Chaillu with specimens. The same cannot be said of North Americans whose habitat sasquatch shares.

LTC8K6
16th February 2006, 07:33 AM
Discovery Channel will be showing the "Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science" program on Feb 18th and 22nd, 11am, if anyone is interested in some pro-bigfoot propaganda.

DSC — Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science

The legend of a North American Ape species known as Sasquatch, Bigfoot and Yeti has been around since recorded time. Even today, sighting and physical evidence are gathered on a regular basis. Is this creature fact or fiction?

The blurb acts as if the show is a balanced look at bigfoot.....

Hitch
16th February 2006, 07:43 AM
Dfoot,

Bigfoot woos are so convinced that the P/G film is real that they'll never admit it could possibly be a costume. So they insist that "Hollywood" could never produce a costume as good as would have to be to fake that film. Despite the fact that you can see better costumes than "Patty" in episodes of Gilligan's Island and the Beverly Hillbillies. As a matter of fact those were considerably more complicated because they made some effort to get the wearer to walk like an ape rather than just strolling along in oversize shoes.

LAL
16th February 2006, 08:21 AM
Admittedly I have not read this entire thread, and am just in the process of doing so, since the idea of Bigfoot has always intrigued me. I do think the P&G film is more than likely a hoax, but I do wonder what it is that Heironimous would admit to being the guy in the suit? Did he have something against Patterson and Gimlin?

And why did it take him over thirty years to do this? According to Green, he was trying to sell this story for years, and, according to Gimlin, he (Gimlin) has been putting up with this stuff for thirty years (they're neighbors). Heironimus finally got a taker in Greg Long. He variously claimed the suit was made by "the guy from Planet of the Apes" and by Patterson, who skinned out a dead "red horse" and that Patterson never paid him the promised $1000 for "doing the walk" in the suit. Phillip Morris, a costume maker, claimed he sold Patterson one of his standard gorilla suits for about $416.00 + S&H and Long included this in the book.

Morris built a suit and Heironimus wore it for this recreation:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f305/stefandozier/post-2520-1139765391.gif

LAL
16th February 2006, 08:26 AM
It's not that bad, I've certainly learned more about bigfoot myth in what I have read thus far than anything I have seen on tv over the years. LAL and Huntsters posts are entertaining to say the least. I saw the P&G film on my comp and I forgot how far Gimlin was from Herionimous. Yeah I said it. Anyway I cannot really believe that anyone could believe Bigfoots existence from such an incredibly absurd piece of cinema. I feel emberassed for the experts like Krantz and Meldrum who have utterly wasted their time with this nonsense. And really the suit doesn't look that impressive so I am pretty sure that it could be made in the mid sixties or any other time for that matter.

Thanks for the compliment.

The PGF isn't what convinced me, but I have to ask if you've read what Krantz and Meldrum have to say or did you reach your conclusion without actually doing that?