Patterson film: Credit where credit is due

[briandunning]

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.

Keep in mind that Hollywood's state of the art, at the time, was Planet of the Apes and the Galileo Seven episode of Star Trek.

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

[Skeptical Greg]

You have got to be kidding !

A clear case of the ' Emperor's New Clothes ' ...

It looks like it is about to fall apart..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif


Monkey suits in movies ( pre computer ) were not made with
convincing the audience they were real . They were place holders
in the script, not an attempt to fool the audience.. Why waste
time and money to that end ?

I have allowed many times in my discussions at BFF, that a real
Bigfoot may very well look like a crappy costume .. I have seen
other animals that look like bad suits to me...

This suit's butt, while very similar, looks better made to me..

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

[Huntster]

I hear a lot people say that "it's the worst fake they've ever seen" and "you can easily see the seams in the suit". I've gone through it frame by frame and concluded the opposite: that if it's a fake, and let's assume it is, it's brilliant, and decades ahead of Hollywood. I'm amazed at the realism, close up, frame by frame, everything from the moving leg muscles to the silverback fur coloration.......

Do you guys REALLY believe that it's badly done?

I'm in complete agreement with you.

[Mad Hom]

I'm in complete agreement with you.

Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real? Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

It's funny....Bigfeet Fan has decided that the PGF is the gold standard...which has locked them into a descriptive corner. Every Hair Biped filmed since hasn't looked a thing like the PGF so they have been dubbed....not as good.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

[LTC8K6]

Close up?

Where?

There are no close up shots in the PGF, just wildly blown up and enhanced stills.

The PGF you have seen is almost certainly not the original, but the enlarged copy.

Few people have ever seen the original PGF.

No one has apparently seen the original uncut roll of film in it's entirety.

It was edited before it was ever shown.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Of course you are Fudd.......and what of EVERY single suit...errr......Bigfeetsus filmed since........do they also look as real?

Nope. Not even close.

Why hasn't one that looked as real (allegedly) been filmed since? Hmmm? I mean it's been 40 years or so.

That's a good question, and one I've asked skeptics many times.

I suspect it's because it's the only authentic moving picture of a real, live sasquatch that I've seen, but of course, that answer isn't accepted by folks like yourself.

As far as why there aren't more authentic films? I've opined more times than I can possibly remember that it may be because these creatures are exceedingly rare, but again, skeptics don't like that answer, either.

In fact, they don't like any possible answers I offer.

My opinion.....If you work hard enough to convince yourself that something is real....you come to believe it...even in the face of common sense.

If that opinion is accurate, it's converse will also be true.

[bjb]

Close up?

Where?

There are no close up shots in the PGF, just wildly blown up and enhanced stills.

The PGF you have seen is almost certainly not the original, but the enlarged copy.

Few people have ever seen the original PGF.

No one has apparently seen the original uncut roll of film in it's entirety.

It was edited before it was ever shown.

Maybe the original film wasn't blurry enough? Maybe it shows the creature a little too clearly? Without a thorough examination of the original film, it is not a good idea to put too much faith it it. After all, the film does exist and such an examination is possible. What are the film's owners afraid of?

[Gravy]

Brilliant?
Decades ahead of Hollywood?
Are you basing your opinion on the same blurry, grainy copies of film that we've all seen? If so, can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

[Huntster]

...can you describe specifically what about the suit is brilliant and why you don't think Hollywood costume designers and SFX people could have made something as good in a few days?

Because they didn't?

This was, timewise, simultaneous to the original "Planet of the Apes" movie. In terms of muscular definition, and movement there really isn't any comparison.

And Patterson/Gimlin weren't Hollywood costume designers or SFX personnel.

[case sensitive]

"The planet of the apes" wasn't shot by a really bad camera from a long distance. The apes wore clothes. If P/G Bigfoot was starring in the movie it would look horrible by comparison.

[Yeah_Right]

Just my opinion, but the PG film looks faker each time I see it. I really cannot believe anyone would take it seriously.

[Brainache]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

[Correa Neto]

Some comments, made before by other posters but worthy of being repeated:

The comparsion between "Planet of the Apes" and PGF, so commonly made by footers is flawed because:

1. PoA "apes" were not intended to represent "real" apes. PoA apes were a metaphor, "humanized" apes, with human bodies. Other than making the actors walk a bit curved, there was no effort to recreate an "ape body". They used clothes!!!! Is Patty wearing any clothes? PoA focused on facial prosthetics that allowed the actors to express emotions. Pretty common issue nowdays, but a major breakthrough by then. So, let's repeat one more time to keep it clear for some- PoA "apes" were Hollywood state-of-the-art only when it comes to facial prosthetics.

2. Want to make a comparsion between Hollywood apes and Patty, check the "Africa Screams" gorilla (very similar to Patty and its from the 40s!), the 2001 hominids (despite the shaggy hair), and Star Trek's Mugato (yes, Star Trek the original series was a low-budget TV show, despite what some footers claim). Wanna see "compiant gaits" and some Patty-like footage? Check those films, and check also the "classic" Japanese B-movies (Kaiju movies, if you preffer) "Godzilla X King Kong" and "King King Escapes". Plenty of Patties there, specially when the camera is slightly out-of focus.

3. At last but not least, PoA and "Africa Screams", as well the other movies had long sequences with steady camera movments, razor sharp focus and close-ups. All of these allow the viewers to nitpick flaws in the costumes. And PGF... How long it is? The camera is steady? The focus is perfect? The subject was filmed from up close?

Sorry, but if you want to present evidence for bigfoot, you'll have to do better than this.

[Skeptical Greg]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

Yeah, but the babies sure looked fake ..;)

[Tricky]

Okay, I'll concede that it is better than The Blair Witch Project. Not better than Harry and the Hendersons though.

[Huntster]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

[luchog]

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers. There's a strong indication that it was put together with bits from a lot of his previous work. If it was Chambers, it wouldn't be the first bigfoot hoax he was involved in. His involvement in one other is well documented, and there is a strong likelihood that he was also involved in a third, the "Minnesota Iceman".

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It's pretty clear from even the crappy out-of-focus grainy clip that it's a suit. It simply doesn't move like any animal or hominid, half the musculature, in particular the gluteals, does not move at all. Watch a bunch of large humans walk around, then go to the zoo and watch a bunch of apes walk around. It's clear that this cannot possibly be anything but a fake, and not even a good one at that.

Edited to add:
According to director John Landis and Chambers biographer Scott Essman, Chambers did definitely create the "Patty" suit.

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

[Huntster]

The consensus from those who actually work in the film industry doing those sorts of special effects is that it is definitely a hoax, and highly likely that Patterson bought or rented a second-hand suit from one of the pre-eminent "monster makeup" men, John Chambers.

Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.

So, in effect, a collared liar attempted to get us to believe he knew Patterson was a liar.

We were all so impressed.....................

[Wowbagger]

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement.

A single frame of animation might looks quite nice, but if it was from a bad or lazy team of animators, the motion won't be very fluid, and you'll constantly know you are watching a cartoon.

I reiterate that you should watch the un-shaky version Diogenes provided the link for: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
(Of course, even at the frame-by-frame the fakery can still be detected, somewhat, as Diogenes also pointed out.)

[Huntster]

The problem with examining the footage by individual frames, is that you miss out on all the fakery that can be detected in the movement....

And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.

[Wowbagger]

And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.
What muscle movements are you referring to? The suit looks rather flabby to me. There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.

[Steven Howard]

What muscle movements are you referring to? The suit looks rather flabby to me. There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

Yeah, no kidding. As far as I can tell, the butt doesn't move at all.

Here's a video that shows muscle movement in a large primate:

http://www.fotosearch.com/FIL143/bw0115/

Look how his arms and shoulders move, and compare that to the thighs and hips in the Patterson clip.

[Huntster]

....I reiterate that you should watch the un-shaky version Diogenes provided the link for: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
(Of course, even at the frame-by-frame the fakery can still be detected, somewhat, as Diogenes also pointed out.)

I've seen it many times. A fellow who particpates at BFF stabilized the film.

Instead of detecting fakery, I saw features that made the film more impressive.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And vice versa. Examining the footage in full movement shows muscle movement that a still photo can't detect, as well as showing features that no other bigfoot footage shows.
What muscle movements are you referring to?

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.

....There is no muscle definition, at all, in those arms or legs, or anything.

When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

[Steven Howard]

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

Really?

4117

[switchtech]

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the ape suits in 2001? You know the Kubrick movie that was shot in 1968?

The ape costumes at the start of that film didn't win the oscar for make-up because most people thought they were real apes.

They certainly looked a lot more real than Pattie.

You answer your own question, nobody mentions 2001 because they apparently thing the critters at the beginning of the movie are real apes!

I've seen it many times. A fellow who particpates at BFF stabilized the film.

Instead of detecting fakery, I saw features that made the film more impressive.

Apparently I've never seen the same version of the film. Every time I watch the video available, it is obvious the musculature in the creature is not moving - like a real creature or otherwise. The muscles in the rump don't flex, I don't see any of the things that cry out "authentic" to me.

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.

When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.

Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

In all the video I've seen there is no flexing of the triceps - also, the gait looks entirely human to me, especially a human wearing a heavy suit.

Of course, I don't claim expertise at any of these observations other than decades of seeing humans walking about, but I see nothing convincing me that isn't a person wearing a bulky suit.

jbs

[Mad Hom]

In particular, when she turns to look at the men while still walking and steps down into a depression, her muscles in her thigh and buttock. There are also a couple of times when her tricep tightens.



When I get to another computer, I'll forward a link to the particular part that I'm mentioning.



Yes, including Hollywood suit experts of the era.

I echo the sentiments of many in this thread...."Patty" looks to be walking in about as human a way as possible....scream "Compliant Gait" from the rooftops if you wish....nothing changes my opinion that that thing walks just like a person...wearing a furry suit.

This link you speak of is probably something from Bigfeetsus:The Legend meets Editing right?

Anything that has been tampered with after the fact is worthless. You say these people just cleaned it up...but we have no way of knowing that that's all they did.

The only worthwhile version of the PGF is the original...which if memory serves....conveniently is no longer in existence....all we have is piss poor 10th generation copies and doctored up director's cut versions you and the rest of Bigfoot Nation would have us believe haven't been tampered with...so spare me the stabilized footage take.

I'm curious Fudster,has it ever entered that mangled pipe cleaner you call a brain stem that you see all this muscle movement basically because you really WANT to see it....not necessarily because it's .....actually there??

[SphereGuy]

Will this thread make it to 114 pages?

Remember the guy, I can't recall who, who cropped Patty out and put her in a street scene with some photo program and asked for a critique of "his" suit on a bigfoot forum and everyone said it was so fake then someone pointed out it was Patty and everyone ranted and ranted about how they weren't really fooled and knew it was Patty all along and made excuses about why they were/weren't fooled?

I think for now the whole Patty debate had deteriorated into the old playground argument of "yes it is" "no it isn't" over and over until someone runs out of breath.

[Brainache]

You've solved the controversy!

Kubrick built Patty!


No, if Kubrick had've built Pattie she wouldn't look so fake.

Just because some Disney exec in the sixties thought it was beyond current special effects technology doesn't make it so.

2001 was cutting edge sixties special effects and those ape suits are far more convincing than the Patterson Gimlin film.

It's kind of a shame because I wanted to think BF was out there and my childhood memory of the PGF was so much more convincing than the adult reality of seeing it again after so many years.

I suppose there is still room for some tiny speck of doubt, but not much.

[Oroborus]

Okay I agree that it really just looks like someone in a suite walking. The gait doesn't really scream confident predator to me. I also agree that any footage is pretty much rendered void by the fact the original doesn't exist.

On another note that none of you have touched on. Nevermind how it looks or moves, look at how it acts. Have you ever seen an animal be it a stronger predator or something you'd consider prey just look at you and not even react? Especially in a situation where you've apparently suprised it?

It doesn't quicken it's pace, it doesn't look suprised, it doesn't stop or react at all. Think about it, even for a human if you saw a deer or anything else in the woods you would get a reaction other than turning your head for half a second in a calm manner.

It reacts like a man who is told to look at the camera at a certain time. That and everything else make it call it a fake.

[Mad Hom]

Will this thread make it to 114 pages?

Remember the guy, I can't recall who, who cropped Patty out and put her in a street scene with some photo program and asked for a critique of "his" suit on a bigfoot forum and everyone said it was so fake then someone pointed out it was Patty and everyone ranted and ranted about how they weren't really fooled and knew it was Patty all along and made excuses about why they were/weren't fooled?

I think for now the whole Patty debate had deteriorated into the old playground argument of "yes it is" "no it isn't" over and over until someone runs out of breath.

Yes I recall it was Dfoot who perpetrated said act...and as I recall...Fudster damn near had a litter of puppies over the whole thing. I mean he absolutely lost it if memory serves. I of course thought it was a hoot...but than again I find great pleasure in Bigfoot Fan making an ass of him or herself so what can I say.

Whatever happened to Dfoot anyway?

[Mad Hom]

Okay I agree that it really just looks like someone in a suite walking. The gait doesn't really scream confident predator to me. I also agree that any footage is pretty much rendered void by the fact the original doesn't exist.

On another note that none of you have touched on. Nevermind how it looks or moves, look at how it acts. Have you ever seen an animal be it a stronger predator or something you'd consider prey just look at you and not even react? Especially in a situation where you've apparently suprised it?

It doesn't quicken it's pace, it doesn't look suprised, it doesn't stop or react at all. Think about it, even for a human if you saw a deer or anything else in the woods you would get a reaction other than turning your head for half a second in a calm manner.

It reacts like a man who is told to look at the camera at a certain time. That and everything else make it call it a fake.

Couldn't agree with you more Oroborus my friend Patty schleps across the creek bed EXACTLY like a man in a suit. Of course Bigfoot Apologist would have you believe it uses something they like to call a "Compliant Gait" or sort of a Groucho Marx walk....which I don't buy for a second. If Patty does in fact use this "Compliant Gait" it's incredibly subtle but than again Bigfoot Fan just loves "subtle" when it comes to evidence.

Look real close at this hole in the mud and you'll see a sasquatch arse.Look real hard at the PGF and you'll see a thigh hernia.Pay really close attention and you'll see the compliant gait...blah blah blah ad nauseum.

At first,second and 117th glance this alleged "Bigfoot" looks exactly like a gibroney in a silly suit to me. Couple this with all the timeline problems,differences in story between Patterson and Gimlin, the loss of an alleged second roll of film showing the trackway,and the fact that Roger Patterson was a less than scrupulous human being among many other things and you have what easily amounts to a hoax in my mind.

Bigfoot Fan has never satisfactorily explained away all of these problems as a whole....they almost exclusively tackle each one individually as if each problem with their Holy Grail exists in a vacuum. I for one would enjoy hearing them explain away the fact that...

This film that looks for all intents and purposes like a guy in a suit was filmed by an underhanded guy who stole a camera,who straight up said he was going to film a Bigfeetsus on that trip,whose story does not match up well with his cohort,who somehow lost a second roll of film that had important corroborating feetprints on it,who apparently told people he was making fake feetprints and rented a silly suit for a "documentary" among many other problems.

When Bigfoot Nation can explain away ALL of this combined than and only than will I begin to take them and their pet obsession seriously.

[senorpogo]

It doesn't quicken it's pace, it doesn't look suprised, it doesn't stop or react at all. Think about it, even for a human if you saw a deer or anything else in the woods you would get a reaction other than turning your head for half a second in a calm manner.

Yeah, the perfect look into the camera always makes me wonder. Obviously, that doesn't disprove anything, but I does make one question. Also, if memory serves me, I think Patterson made Gimlin agree before hand that if they did see anything they wouldn't shoot it. Which makes my BS-sense tingle a bit.

To me, the PGF is worthless. Debunking it is futile because believers consider it true and beyond criticism, yet it will never be enough to convince the skeptic. I don't think any video footage ever will be enough.

[Mad Hom]

Yeah, the perfect look into the camera always makes me wonder. Obviously, that doesn't disprove anything, but I does make one question. Also, if memory serves me, I think Patterson made Gimlin agree before hand that if they did see anything they wouldn't shoot it. Which makes my BS-sense tingle a bit.

To me, the PGF is worthless. Debunking it is futile because believers consider it true and beyond criticism, yet it will never be enough to convince the skeptic. I don't think any video footage ever will be enough.

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.

[Oroborus]

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.


Ditto.

[William Parcher]

The things about "Patty's" behavior that strike skeptics as being unrealistic are frequently pointed out by believers as being supporting evidence of authenticity.

Bigfoot doesn't act fearful, because Bigfoot knows it can kick your ass at any given moment. Don't you skeptics get it? When you film the reigning King-of-the-Forest, it is supposed to act like a sauntering swaggering King. Duh!

[Mad Hom]

The things about "Patty's" behavior that strike skeptics as being unrealistic are frequently pointed out by believers as being supporting evidence of authenticity.

Bigfoot doesn't act fearful, because Bigfoot knows it can kick your ass at any given moment. Don't you skeptics get it? When you film the reigning King-of-the-Forest, it is supposed to act like a sauntering swaggering King. Duh!


Lions,Tigers and even Bears would all react to a person running after them with a camera...with either fight or flight....they wouldn't just calmly stroll away.

If Patty would have started to book across the creek bed at a breakneck...I might be a little less skeptical of it...or if she picked up a log and beat Roge to death with it or whatever...but the stroll appears....staged.

I can't for the life of me understand what Bigfoot Fan see's that we the silly skeptics don't. I mean I've even stared at their Bigfeetsus:When the Bullshyt meets Editing Directors Cut version..........and I still think it's a gibroney in a suit.

What's wrong with me?

[Wowbagger]

I would like to add here, that if you are going to try to find muscle definition in the Patterson film, you must look really hard for it. (And, what you often find can also equally be explained as just a fold in the ape suit.) Whereas, in real footage of real apes, the muscle definition is readily apparent.

[William Parcher]

There's nothing really wrong with you MH (though you are aggressive and insulting towards the believers).

The problem is that the debate about Bigfoot is an open forum where anything goes. The believers will explain away any weirdness that might suggest that some bit of evidence is false or hoaxed. Ultimately, the belief in Bigfoot forces them to have to do that sort of thing all the time.

You can even find a species of believer that thinks the PGF is 100% fake, but also thinks that Bigfoot is 100% real.

They will give you a variety of explanations about why Patty didn't bolt. Notice that she also doesn't choose the most direct escape route by entering the forest at her first opportunity. She walks across the scene and remains in view far longer than was necessary to get out of sight. She chose her own path, and so it does beg these questions. All of the explanations are designed to appeal to reason when you assume it's a real Bigfoot. Patty is a Bigfoot and she does what she does. The believers generally translate her behavior as being a confident and brisk retreat. She didn't run because she didn't feel the need to run.

[Armi Shanks]

Um....sorry to interject....has any comment been made about the sheen on Patty's 'fur'? Considering this 'creature' supposedly lives rummaging around in the undergrowth, I'd love to know what shampoo it uses.....it's got a lovely gloss on it. Either that or......shock, horror.....it's nothing more than cheap, shiny, synthetic fibre.

[Mad Hom]

There's nothing really wrong with you MH (though you are aggressive and insulting towards the believers).

The problem is that the debate about Bigfoot is an open forum where anything goes. The believers will explain away any weirdness that might suggest that some bit of evidence is false or hoaxed. Ultimately, the belief in Bigfoot forces them to have to do that sort of thing all the time.

You can even find a species of believer that thinks the PGF is 100% fake, but also thinks that Bigfoot is 100% real.

They will give you a variety of explanations about why Patty didn't bolt. Notice that she also doesn't choose the most direct escape route by entering the forest at her first opportunity. She walks across the scene and remains in view far longer than was necessary to get out of sight. She chose her own path, and so it does beg these questions. All of the explanations are designed to appeal to reason when you assume it's a real Bigfoot. Patty is a Bigfoot and she does what she does. The believers generally translate her behavior as being a confident and brisk retreat. She didn't run because she didn't feel the need to run.


Aggressive and insulting?? Hey....listen buddy.... I resemble that remark.

...and I make absolutely no apologies for my style either. Fight fire with fire I always say.Bigfoot Nation(Fudster,LAL..etc etc) comes across as snide and holier than thou to me,they act as if theyre in on some super secret discovery that only they are smart enough to understand and we the lowly skeptics of earth are somehow too ignorant to see what they see.

To me all is fair.....I chose my handle "Mad Hom" as sort of a subtle hint at what one could expect from me. I find very little wrong with a few Ad Hominem attacks once and awhile...you know for entertainment sakes..although I don't believe I've ever said..

You're stupid because you believe in Bigfeetsus....or...If you weren't so dumb you'd understand it's a hoax.

Sometimes I am to aggressive...but what can I say....the logic these people use sometimes astounds me...and I can't help but let fly with some insults...my apologies....also most of my messageboard experience is from Sports forums and stuff where insults and digs are the rule of the day...I'll work on it.

The problem is that the debate about Bigfoot is an open forum where anything goes. The believers will explain away any weirdness that might suggest that some bit of evidence is false or hoaxed.Ultimately, the belief in Bigfoot forces them to have to do that sort of thing all the time.

Truer words have never been spoken William.


Yeah those people who buy into Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size yet don't buy into the PGF...what a strange breed they are. To me without the PGF Bigfoot Fan has absolutely bupkis....that's why it's defended so vehemently.

I mean these anti-PGF Tru-Bleevers what are they basing their Bleef on? The arse cast? Spooky stories? The fact that they think they saw a H.B.U.S? What?

[luchog]

And, just because there are features "no other bigfoot footage shows", does not mean it is not fake. It could just as easily imply it was a costume design unique to what other people put together.
If you read the link in my post, which Huntster clearly avoided doing, it's most likely that the suit was put together from parts of two or three other suits created for various television shows and movies.

And I agree entirely that the musculature and movement looks entirely wrong. That's also the consensus of pretty much every biologist that works closely with primates. If you watch closely, there's no gluteal movement at all.

[luchog]

Just because some Disney exec in the sixties thought it was beyond current special effects technology doesn't make it so.
The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

What is important to realize is that Disney at the time was not involved much in "creature" effects. They were fairly exclusively animation; and what few creature effects they did have tended to be rather crude by the standards of the day.

[luchog]

Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.

Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

[Mad Hom]

Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

In Fudsters quote he references a "Dfoot attempted hoax" that's an interesting take on what in my mind was Dfoot merely testing Bigfoot Fan to see if he/she could tell the difference between a hoax and the real deal (allegedly)...so he used Patty herself...big deal...I don't see why Fudds water broke over the whole thing.

[William Parcher]

If you read the link in my post, which Huntster clearly avoided doing, it's most likely that the suit was put together from parts of two or three other suits created for various television shows and movies.

The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

Never mind... "putting together a suit made from various TV costumes". Patterson was fully capable of customizing anything he got his hands on. He may have only needed one standard costume to create his own unique Bigfoot. The saggital crest and breasts had already been described as a Bigfoot feature before Patterson made his Bigfoot costume. He applied both.

It's hardly ever mentioned that National Geographic was given a premier viewing of the actual film (which could have been already edited). After a single viewing, National Geographic rejected the film. No reason is given for their refusal, but it is probably safe to say that they immediately recognized it as a guy in a costume. As it is, the best digital reproductions of the film are also the ones that scream out to hoaxery. The costume flaws reveal themselves best when the film is shown closest to the original.

It's no accident that the PGF Conspiracy Cartel will not share the original source evidence with a potentially skeptical audience. We haven't been given the opportunity to examine the film as it came out of Roger Patterson's camera. We aren't even granted the chance to look at the best copies that exist. These are given to "Bigfoot researchers" who parse them out in confirmatory carnival acts like the "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" pseudodocumentary. The audience is given a treatment of the subject that is fully marinated in confirmation bias. Do you think that Bigfoot exists? Well... these things are designed to shove you in that direction.

[William Parcher]

Dfoot came awfully close to replicating Patty. Scared the poop out of the believers. When they start hurling shrill screams you know that somebody is getting too close to their fantasy. He also made a 180 degree turn on his belief in the PGF while he was posting on BFF, which pissed a bunch of the PGF sycophants off. Dfoot forgot that Gimlin is a saint who has not and does not tell lies :)

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

[RayG]

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics.

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.I was actually a member of JREF long before I was a member of the BFF, but I've been following the bigfoot mystery for 30 years or more, and, for what it's worth, the BFF is still an excellent, though sometimes frustrating place, to talk about bigfoot. This kinda sums up my 30 year bigfoot journey:

In the beginning I accepted anything and everything about bigfoot. I voraciously read anything pertaining to bigfoot I could get my hands on. I even dropped in on my bigfoot hero John Green one weekend in 1981, while I was on a military course. He was very gracious, and a helluva interesting guy to talk to. I ended up creating a webpage based on his book, and he gave me full authorization to go ahead with it. As the years went by however, I began to truly question the lack of conclusive evidence for this elusive creature, and in turn, began to question the very reports I had earlier accepted as fact. Where the bigfoot door used to be wide open, for me, it has now almost completely closed. There has been no credible evidence come forward in the past 30-40 years, and my faith that bigfoot exists has all but evaporated. Yes, I still cling to the possibility, so the door will never be closed completely, but I'm not expecting it to burst open again during my lifetime either.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

RayG

[Mad Hom]

Dfoot came awfully close to replicating Patty. Scared the poop out of the believers. When they start hurling shrill screams you know that somebody is getting too close to their fantasy. He also made a 180 degree turn on his belief in the PGF while he was posting on BFF, which pissed a bunch of the PGF sycophants off. Dfoot forgot that Gimlin is a saint who has not and does not tell lies :)

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

Yeah I did a search over at the Bigfoot Think Tank many moons ago and recall quite a few posts by Dfoot where he's pretty much sounding like an apologist for the cause...than suddenly and abruptly he came to his senses. Makes me think there's hope for the rest of them.

[Mad Hom]

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

I was actually a member of JREF long before I was a member of the BFF, but I've been following the bigfoot mystery for 30 years or more, and, for what it's worth, the BFF is still an excellent, though sometimes frustrating place, to talk about bigfoot. This kinda sums up my 30 year bigfoot journey:

In the beginning I accepted anything and everything about bigfoot. I voraciously read anything pertaining to bigfoot I could get my hands on. I even dropped in on my bigfoot hero John Green one weekend in 1981, while I was on a military course. He was very gracious, and a helluva interesting guy to talk to. I ended up creating a webpage based on his book, and he gave me full authorization to go ahead with it. As the years went by however, I began to truly question the lack of conclusive evidence for this elusive creature, and in turn, began to question the very reports I had earlier accepted as fact. Where the bigfoot door used to be wide open, for me, it has now almost completely closed. There has been no credible evidence come forward in the past 30-40 years, and my faith that bigfoot exists has all but evaporated. Yes, I still cling to the possibility, so the door will never be closed completely, but I'm not expecting it to burst open again during my lifetime either.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

RayG

I too was once a Hook In Mouth Tru Bleever as well...than...and LAL might find the irony here amusing...I read Krantz.

So much of Big Footprints seems like conjecture and rampant speculation to me that it caused me to look into it deeper....and that research is pretty much what caused me to totally turn to the dark side (skepticism)..and here we are.

[William Parcher]

Of course you have evidence of this? I'm pretty skeptical, and I've never been banned from there, nor have other resident skeptics over there. Which ones do you mean?

Look closely at the BFF "rise and fall" of Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head & Dfoot. You could add DesertYeti and Tube to that, I suppose. Banned? Well, probably not all... but BFF has a special way of moderator filtering of the posts of special people that is really the equivalent of a ban.

If that makes me 'goofy', so be it.

Ray, you are a goofy Bigfoot skeptic that loves playing around with the goofy believers.

[RayG]

Look closely at the BFF "rise and fall" of Coltrane, Baboon Extra Head & Dfoot. You could add DesertYeti and Tube to that, I suppose. Banned? Well, probably not all... but BFF has a special way of moderator filtering of the posts of special people that is really the equivalent of a ban.

Just listed all the 'banned' members over at the BFF and none of the names you mention are on the list. While Dfoot has been shunned for his attempted 'hoax', I see no evidence he's been banned. DYI and Tube seem to have grown tired of the lack of evidence, and decided to migrate elsewhere, but again, I see no evidence that either was banned. Coltrane and BEH don't seem to be active anymore, but they aren't on the banned list, so I'm assuming it's their choice not to participate anymore.

There are quite a few people over there that are very skeptical of the evidence presented. I don't think any of them need fear they'll be banned.

Could it be your claim is in error? :D

Ray, you are a goofy Bigfoot skeptic that loves playing around with the goofy believers.Nah, that door is still open a crack, I just prefer claims be supported by facts. I think my tag line over there sums up my attitude quite nicely:

'Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.'

RayG

[William Parcher]

Yeah I did a search over at the Bigfoot Think Tank many moons ago and recall quite a few posts by Dfoot where he's pretty much sounding like an apologist for the cause...than suddenly and abruptly he came to his senses.

Dfoot started out thinking that Bob Gimlin was telling the truth; then he switched to Gimlin being an active liar to this day.

Bob Heironimus is claiming to be the guy in the costume. He was used by P&G in their Bigfoot documentary and so was fully familiar with P&G as personal aquaintances.

Mad Hom, did you know that Bob Heironimus lives very close on the same street that Bob Gimlin lives on in Yakima, Washington?

Yes. Bob Heironimus said that he was the guy in the costume and that both Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume prior to filming him on that sandbar at Bluff Creek. BH was so bold in his declaration of being the PGF costume guy, that he did so even while Gimlin is still alive and able to counter the claim.

Skeptics beg for the original film to try to understand things. I agree. But I would also really truly love to see a live debate between Gimlin and Heironimus. Why? Because I think the PGF is a fake and that Heironumus really was the guy in the Bigfoot costume... and that Gimlin really did help him get into the suit before Patterson filmed him striding alongside Bluff Creek.

[Mad Hom]

Dfoot started out thinking that Bob Gimlin was telling the truth; then he switched to Gimlin being an active liar to this day.

Bob Heironimus is claiming to be the guy in the costume. He was used by P&G in their Bigfoot documentary and so was fully familiar with P&G as personal aquaintances.

Mad Hom, did you know that Bob Heironimus lives very close on the same street that Bob Gimlin lives on in Yakima, Washington?

Yes. Bob Heironimus said that he was the guy in the costume and that both Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume prior to filming him on that sandbar at Bluff Creek. BH was so bold in his declaration of being the PGF costume guy, that he did so even while Gimlin is still alive and able to counter the claim.

Skeptics beg for the original film to try to understand things. I agree. But I would also really truly love to see a live debate between Gimlin and Heironimus. Why? Because I think the PGF is a fake and that Heironumus really was the guy in the Bigfoot costume... and that Gimlin really did help him get into the suit before Patterson filmed him striding alongside Bluff Creek.

Yes Bob H lives on the same street as Bob G...that's in Long's book correct? I've read it...and I to believe Bob H was in the suit....imagine what it must be like when they bump into each other at the grocery store huh? Probably pretty dicey I'd guess.

Yes I think a face to face debate between the Bobs would be Must See TV...or Must Hear Radio...or whichever. Gimlin doesn't stand to gain much from it though.......so I'd guess he'll probably take the hoax to his deathbed.

I also firmly believe that if Gimlin did admit to the fakery....Bigfoot Fan would keep on believing.. this thing is in their blood now....they still have the butt cast...and Bossburg...and dermal ridges...oh and spooky stories...and feetprintsus casts and...well...lot's of other stuff to...you know.

[luchog]

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

I think the only reason that I never got banned is that I never posted, strictly a lurker.

[luchog]

I too was once a Hook In Mouth Tru Bleever as well...than...and LAL might find the irony here amusing...I read Krantz.

So much of Big Footprints seems like conjecture and rampant speculation to me that it caused me to look into it deeper....and that research is pretty much what caused me to totally turn to the dark side (skepticism)..and here we are.

I was never a True Believer, but leaned heavily in favour of believing in the existence of Sasquatch and other cryptozoological phenomenon (I was a huge believer in Nessie and the "surviving plesiosaur" theory").

However, I do fully support the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/).

[senorpogo]

I'd accept some decent film of one if it depicted something that looked,moved and acted like an actual animal...not a schlep in a suit.

With so many hoaxers and so much to gain, I'd be suspicious of just about any video. We're in the age of computers and photoshop.

Also, I don't think it's too much to ask for some solid, indisputable physical proof - like a decaying bigfoot carcass.

[William Parcher]

With so many hoaxers and so much to gain, I'd be suspicious of just about any video. We're in the age of computers and photoshop.

Also, I don't think it's too much to ask for some solid, indisputable physical proof - like a decaying bigfoot carcass.

A good video of a Bigfoot doing Bigfoot things could not be faked. Even state-of-the-art CGI mastery cannot duplicate fluid natural animal movement. The closest I've seen is Jackson's Gollum & King Kong. But both fall apart when critically examined because they really aren't filmed living animals interacting with other animals.

How about an in-focus 15 minute home video of a Bigfoot killing a deer, pulling out and eating it's steaming liver, then charging directly at the cameraman who presents the whole thing from a hospital bed with broken limbs and strange large primate (like a gorilla) bite marks on his body?

That would kick things up a notch, eh?

[senorpogo]

A good video of a Bigfoot doing Bigfoot things could not be faked. Even state-of-the-art CGI mastery cannot duplicate fluid natural animal movement.

Agreed. There's only so much you can do with CGI and computers. So I guess I could imagine a video that could be hoax proof. Still, I think someone with the money, the proper "real world" supplies, the computer skills, and the know how could produce a very convincing hoax video.

So unless it's that perfect, hoax proof video, I'm personally going to be very skeptical of a stand alone video product.

[bjb]

Those Messin' With Sasquatch commercials look pretty good to me. I'm sure the producers could edit something together that would look very, very convincing. Even Penn & Teller's crappy Bigfoot video fooled a few believers.

[William Parcher]

Agreed. There's only so much you can do with CGI and computers. So I guess I could imagine a video that could be hoax proof. Still, I think someone with the money, the proper "real world" supplies, the computer skills, and the know how could produce a very convincing hoax video.

So unless it's that perfect, hoax proof video, I'm personally going to be very skeptical of a stand alone video product.


Yeah, it would be a very expensive and complicated hoax. It would almost certainly be a conspiracy as well. There would likely need to be numerous subcontractors to create the whole thing. Each of them cannot slip-up or squeal or all is lost. You can't have Peter Jackson present the video (even if he did orchestrate it), but instead you need to find a "common folk" dude to represent the filmer. He has to play the role perfectly and with no apparent connections to CGI tomfoolery. The evidence itself must withstand all forensic scrutiny (the footage and before/after footage on the camera must always appear to be legitimate and unedited, etc.)

The PGF has never really had a balls-out professional forensic examination. Nearly everyone doesn't care about doing anything with it because it's so obviously a fake. Hardly anyone even cares when a guy in Yakima (Heironimus) claims to be the one in the costume, because they already knew that somebody was in that costume. Besides, nobody even wants to try spelling his last name.

[Mad Hom]

Yeah, it would be a very expensive and complicated hoax. It would almost certainly be a conspiracy as well. There would likely need to be numerous subcontractors to create the whole thing. Each of them cannot slip-up or squeal or all is lost. You can't have Peter Jackson present the video (even if he did orchestrate it), but instead you need to find a "common folk" dude to represent the filmer. He has to play the role perfectly and with no apparent connections to CGI tomfoolery. The evidence itself must withstand all forensic scrutiny (the footage and before/after footage on the camera must always appear to be legitimate and unedited, etc.)

The PGF has never really had a balls-out professional forensic examination. Nearly everyone doesn't care about doing anything with it because it's so obviously a fake. Hardly anyone even cares when a guy in Yakima (Heironimus) claims to be the one in the costume, because they already knew that somebody was in that costume. Besides, nobody even wants to try spelling his last name.

I've always said that the fact that Bigfeetsus is Bipedal will always doom video of one. There are people...and there are silly suits, why than should the logical conclusion of a person in a silly suit NOT be drawn? It's not as if we're talking about a Sabre Tooth Tiger or a giant Armadillo here. If Patty were a convincing looking quadraped....than maybe we'd have something here...

this just in though...

She's not...and we don't!!

Patty does not in any way,shape or form move like an animal. If it didn't appear to be a guy in a silly suit...schlepping across the Creek bed but more like an animal doing animal things...than maybe we'd have somehting here.

This just in though..

She's not....and we definitely don't.

[Huntster]

.....I'm curious Fudster,has it ever entered that mangled pipe cleaner you call a brain stem that you see all this muscle movement basically because you really WANT to see it....not necessarily because it's .....actually there??

Nope. I see the same type of movement, muscle tone, hide jiggle, etc that I see in the many, many bears I've watched in person; close up, and far away through binocs and spotting scopes; running, playing, swimming, wading, grazing, etc.

Watching a brown bear in the fall running across the tundra might offer you such knowledge and experience.....................if you could do it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Starthinker
Will this thread make it to 114 pages?

Remember the guy, I can't recall who, who cropped Patty out and put her in a street scene with some photo program and asked for a critique of "his" suit on a bigfoot forum and everyone said it was so fake then someone pointed out it was Patty and everyone ranted and ranted about how they weren't really fooled and knew it was Patty all along and made excuses about why they were/weren't fooled?

I think for now the whole Patty debate had deteriorated into the old playground argument of "yes it is" "no it isn't" over and over until someone runs out of breath.
Yes I recall it was Dfoot who perpetrated said act...and as I recall...Fudster damn near had a litter of puppies over the whole thing. I mean he absolutely lost it if memory serves.

Not really. I was getting pissed off at the level of apology coming from people like yourself who attempted to justify his games.

I of course thought it was a hoot...but than again I find great pleasure in Bigfoot Fan making an ass of him or herself so what can I say.

Of course, you can't make any hay over Dfoot's utter failure, so you focus on my arguments with the apologists.

Whatever happened to Dfoot anyway?

Guess, Einstein.........

[Huntster]

Dfoot came awfully close to replicating Patty.

He did no such thing. He played a game of countless montages and photoshopped scams, and he got busted.

Scared the poop out of the believers. When they start hurling shrill screams you know that somebody is getting too close to their fantasy.

Again, not even close. He is a liar, he got caught, and people like yourself offered all manner of justifications for his utter failure to reproduce a suit.

He also made a 180 degree turn on his belief in the PGF while he was posting on BFF, which pissed a bunch of the PGF sycophants off.

Again, not even close. The only people who seem to give a damn what Dfoot thinks is Dfoot and y'all.

Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics.

I don't believe he did. In fact, he has been asked to come back by the owner of the forum to answer some questions, which he hasn't done.

The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.

And I have a vivid imagination?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by William Parcher
Dfoot got banned from Bigfoot Forums, just like a bunch of other skeptics. The JREF Forum serves as a sort of refuge for these folks. I like to think that this place offers a little corner of rationality in the otherwise goofy world of Bigfootery.
I think the only reason that I never got banned is that I never posted, strictly a lurker.

Your a real brave person, huh?

[Huntster]

....Even Penn & Teller's crappy Bigfoot video fooled a few believers.

And who might those "few believers" be?

[LAL]

Dfoot is not banned. He last posted on BFF in August. This is the post:

"Paul -- The questions you ask are very odd ones. You demand that I get you a copy of Bob Heironimus' lie detector test or show you records from Gimlin's arrest or the payments made to him, etc... These are things YOU should do for yourself. I've done plenty already. I've found the mask mold used and demonstrated how the feet and muscles work as seen in the film. Greg Long has provided you with interviews from many witnesses. You need to check out those records yourself. They exist. Unlike Patty (which you will never find even forty years from this date).

Everyone has to be lying (for some unknown reasons) from Harvey Anderson, to Patterson's neighbors, to me. Even to entertain the idea that Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson are honest and everyone from Vilma Radford (and her contract that you can see Roger signed) to Bob Heironimus' mother has to be making up stories is just wishful thinking. Everything points to one answer and one answer only. Roger Patterson pulled several hoaxes in an effort to make money from the interest in Bigfoot and set himself up as the great Bigfoot expert. End of story.

While discussing the JFK assassination on another forum I noted that a certain man had been for many, many years discussed as having some involvement. To me he seemed to be simply a red herring that some bright wise guy had planted out there in the research community. No one believed me. After all, many articles had been written and he'd been discussed for years on the Internet and mentioned in several books.

So I did something really unusual. I tracked him down. He was alive and well and on a fishing trip in another state. He had no idea he was the center of any controversy. I also spoke to his high school and former classmates. I obtained childhood photos of him that demonstrated he had been in high school during JFK's term and had not yet had a chance to join the military or any other organization.

I was amazed that all of these researchers had spent their time fighting over which agency the man worked for in 1963 and other things. Years of this. Yet he was just a kid at that time and had nothing to do with anything. Somehow someone stuck his name into the mix and it took off. It was a simple red herring or bad joke that could have been cleared up with a day's research - yet no one bothered to do that. They spent their time discussing theories about him instead. And you know what I was told? I was told that even though I'd spoken to his friends, tracked him down at his place of business, and obtained all of his high school photos... I was STILL wrong. Somehow all that was an elaborate deception. All of those people were liars. The high school records were lies. His business was just a front. Only their theory was correct. Why? Because they'd invested years in believing in it. They merely adapted new theories and conclusions to explain away my evidence.

How do we explain away the fact that Roger faked his Ape Canyon expedition photo across the road from his home? We even have the woman who took the picture as well as the location. Yet it will be done. It has to be. Just as the high school yearbooks I showed the JFK researchers with the man, his face, and the witnesses who went to school with him all together HAS TO BE FALSE ... somehow. So it goes....

The above story is what prepared me for what I'm seeing now. None of this reaction to finding Patty's original head is surprising at all.

bipto -- When you mention hypocrisy, I don't know what you mean. Seems to me that you are simply attacking the messenger here. You asked me to look into the PG film and I did. As I went along I shared everything I was learning. I wish I'd discovered that people researching Bigfoot are more scientific and less pseudo-scientific, but that's not the case at all. I wish Patty had been a real Bigfoot and we had some filmed evidence, but we don't.

I'm hoping that everyone will save the images I've posted of the mask from Wah Chang and the body suit I made and over time begin to think more openly about it. Hopefully it won't simply be used in some false way as John Vulich's red ape suit was used over at BFRO in that distorted "arm length" demonstration. That type of bad science only tends to make it harder for anyone to take the subject seriously.

I'm asked over and over where the proof is. There's plenty of evidence and witnesses and there is much to see today that John Green and others couldn't understand back then. Except for the word of those who claim to have seen Bigfoot in person we have no evidence of a nine foot tall upright walking gorilla clan roaming the forests. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm only stating the fact that there is much, much more evidence that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin participated in a hoax at Bluff Creek. One of many that went on there.

Gimlin's word that he saw a Bigfoot and no one wore a suit is all there is. Everything else points to the opposite being true - including a stack of witnesses and what can be seen on the film itself. Making up theories in an attempt to make it real doesn't erase all we can see if we only open our eyes. Sometimes a hoax is a hoax and that's all there is to it.

Dan C.--- What you said about the suit is just what happened. You can do it today if you like. You can rent a decent apeman from a top creature suit-maker and have him sign a contract preventing him from speaking about it to anyone. You could do it even easier in 1967 with Janos, Chambers, and Wah's group. That is what happened.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything nefarious... but... it is true that since I've come across some of this recent info I've had backdoor trojan problems and the like. They only show up after I visit this forum. All I'm saying is that some people need to relax about nine foot tall gorillas in movies and ease up a bit. Someone seems to take this PG film biz very, very seriously.

I have not been around because I've been extremely busy. This is how it goes in my business. So it will be for a few months at least. I doubt I'll have much time to stop by and read anything here for a while. If I have a chance to ask more questions of those who worked with Buck Maffei at Corriganville I surely will. Some of the stunt guys who worked with him there and also worked with Chambers, Wah Chang and Janos are still around. I'll question them if I can. Not that they'll know much about it, but I'll do it anyway. You never know.

Please save the info I've given you and do some digging of your own. Not with the idea that you must prove Patty is real, but simply keeping an open mind and realizing that there has been and always will be people who want to fake something for fun or profit --- at your expense.

Good Luck to you all,

Dfoot"

This is where Peiltch "busted" him.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887&st=550&p=300326&#entry300326

The responses are all there.

Who calls whom "liars" on this board?

[LAL]

Maybe the original film wasn't blurry enough? Maybe it shows the creature a little too clearly? Without a thorough examination of the original film, it is not a good idea to put too much faith it it. After all, the film does exist and such an examination is possible. What are the film's owners afraid of?

It's still tied up in legal hassles. Roger oversold the rights and Dahinden spent a lot of money untangling the mess. His sons inherited his rights, Roger's widow has the rest.

There are several first generation copies still. The original was thoroughly examined back in the sixties. It was not tampered with.

The original is reportedly quite clear. Patricia Patterson handed out VHS copies after being burned repeatedly, and many people have formed their opinions of it being to blurry on those as seen on TV in various old documentaries.

The Cibachromes are pretty good too. Here's one:

[LAL]

Yes I think a face to face debate between the Bobs would be Must See TV...or Must Hear Radio...or whichever. Gimlin doesn't stand to gain much from it though.......so I'd guess he'll probably take the hoax to his deathbed.


He was nearly on it; he recently had open heart surgery. No hoax revealed. Patterson died claiming it was the truth as well.

Of course, my cousin lied on her deathbed..............deathbed confessions don't mean much either.

Gimlin's had to put up with Heironimus for over thirty years. A debate would be interesting, but I don't think we'll see it. Bob Gimlin can be seen telling the story on the Willow Creek Symposium 2003 DVD. He certainly seems as honest and sincere as he's been portrayed.

I'm sorry if some of you think we're "holier than thou". I wouldn't say that. I'd say, "Better informed than thou." The media has done a great job of perpetrating misinformation, and if some are getting their ideas from there, I understand, but it's a good idea to check things out before puting ones foot permanently in ones mouth.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah, we got a very full portion of the "John Chambers" story from Dfoot over on BFF; to the tune of nearly 100 pages. It all amounted to Dfoot himself getting caught in an attempted hoax.
Interesting reaction, since the articles I linked to had nothing whatsoever with Dfoot or the BFF. But I didn't really expect you to read them, since woos in general will do anything to avoid confronting contrary evidence.

Okay, let's see if I can dumb this down for you...............

The John Chambers story has been hashed out ad nauseum on BFF, and I read it thoroughly, along with all the links and pro/cons there. Your link provides nothing more and actually offers much less than what was offered, analyzed, debated, theorized, and otherwise considered there to the point of exhaustion.

[LAL]

The only reason that the Disney quote is still used is that it's the only example of someone from the industry supporting the Patterson film, albeit indirectly, rather than debunking it outright.

What is important to realize is that Disney at the time was not involved much in "creature" effects. They were fairly exclusively animation; and what few creature effects they did have tended to be rather crude by the standards of the day.

Au contraire. I was taking my kids to Disneyland in 1967. The Jungle Ride was being built when my dad took us to meet Walt. Those hippos were state of the art and there was nothing like them. I saw them up close, and they were very realistic.

Their animatronics weren't capable of independent movement.

We saw what Disney Studios could do in Harry and the Hendersons.

[LTC8K6]

None of the legal hassles should prevent anyone from seeing the film.

If the film is the real thing, letting a few scientists see the 2 rolls would not cut into anyone's profits or diminish the value of the film in any way.

If the films are not real, then showing them would be very risky.

Unless you show them to a believer like Meldrum, of course.

If you go back and look at the initial responses from scientists, you see that Patty was rather underwhelming and walked just like a human.

It was only later when the marketing started, that Patty suddenly looked different from a man in a suit.

[Skeptical Greg]

It's still tied up in legal hassles. Roger oversold the rights...........
Oversold the rights ?:jaw-dropp

Wasn't there something about selling subscriptions to a newsletter, and
not bothering to publish and mail them out ?

Borrowing money and not paying it back ?...
Using other people's phones to make long distance calls ? ( pretty expensive back then )


Just an out of work cowboy who stumbled upon a Bigfoot ..

... and had a minute of film left in his camera.. ( which he owed money for )

[LAL]

None of the legal hassles should prevent anyone from seeing the film.

<conspiracy theory snipped>

If you go back and look at the initial responses from scientists, you see that Patty was rather underwhelming and walked just like a human.

It was only later when the marketing started, that Patty suddenly looked different from a man in a suit.

She's never walked just like a human.

The biomechanical analyses were done out of the country. How would reports from obscure British and Russian Scientists help business, especially after the tour was over?

Note the dates on the reports below.

Krantz couldn't find anyone to do an analysis. He did his own. It's quite thorough. He even found an error in Grieve.

I don't know what all the problems are, but the original is not available at this time. I doubt much more could be learned from it now. There's been information obtained from it since it was digitalized in an age where biomechanics is no longer in its infancy.

Her gait is like that of Australopithecines, according to a new analysis. How would Roger have known to put that in before Lucy's knee was discovered?


"THE FIRST RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DMITRI BAYANOV AND IGOR BOURTSEV OF THE DARWIN MUSEUM, MOSCOW

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FILM - Roger Patterson's filmstrip shows a hairy man-like creature, walking erect, having well-developed breasts and buttocks. The last three points, if we accept for a time the authenticity of the creature, indicate its belonging in the Hominid, not the Pongid (anthropoid), line of evolution of higher primates.


Proof?


Morphology of the head shows a very outstanding brow ridge, a low bridge of the nose, very pronounced prognatism, a cone-shaped back of the head.

Judging by the well-developed breasts the creature is female. However, the muscles of the back, arms and legs are so much in relief that they call for comparison with those of a heavy weightlifter.

The creature "has no neck," or at least the neck is not to be detected at first sight. Looking back the creature turns its upper torso along with the head to a much greater extent than would normally a human being. This might indicate a somewhat different attachment of the skull to the spine than in man, and a strong development of the neck muscles which conceal a short, sort of simian, neck.

LOCOMOTION AS SEEN IN THE FILM - It seems smooth and resilient like that of a big quadrupedal animal. One gets the impression that the creature steps on slightly bent legs. If that is the case the impact on the heels should be less manifest than in man's walk, and the hominoid tracks, usually rather even in depth, seem to corroborate this conclusion. While walking the creature swings its arms intensely using them as walking beams as it were.

COMPARISON TO SUPPOSED GAIT OF NEANDERTHALER - Prof. Boris Porshnev, who put forward the Neanderthal hypothesis ot the relict hominoid origin, in his monograph (1963), page 288, refers to the opinions of Russian anthropologists V.P. Yakimov, G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky and V.V. Bounak concerning the walk of Neanderthalers as construed by analysts of fossil material. We find it very significant that the two characteristics mentioned above-i.e. less impact on the heels and arms swinging-are listed by anthropologists as supposed traits of Neanderthal locomotion, while slightly bent legs are ascribed to Neanderthalers even in a standing position.

THE HOMINOID FOOT - The main features standing out in both the American and Soviet (Russian) material: 1. Tracks show flat feet (without an arch). 2. The width of the foot in proportion to the length is much greater than in man's foot. 3. The hominoid foot is generally much bigger than man's.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Besides, as has been often noted by late Pyotr Smolin, chairman of the Hominoid Problem Seminar at the Darwin Museum in Moscow, the hominoid foot is distinguished by a great mobility of its toes which can bend very much or fully extend or spread very widely.

One more peculiarity: the so-called double ball at the back of the big toe as evidenced in many North American tracks (Green, 1968; Krantz, 1972). We find Grover Krantz's explanation of this feature very interesting, and we especially value at this stage the conclusion drawn by him concerning the size of the creature's calcaneus (heel bone). In some frames the creature's foot seems to have an unnaturally protruding heel. To a casual observer this may look like a sticking out edge of an artificial sole, but to those who know better this is an omen of the creature's reality.

As for the double ball itself we would like to make here the following remark. The double ball is made up not only of two bulges of tissue but also of a furrow between them, which is like a kind of fold on the sole. Hence the question can also be put this way. Why is a fold formed at this spot on the hominoid sole?

The answer, probably, can be like this: because the hominoid foot is not so rigid as man's foot, it still retains a certain measure of mobility inherited from the hand-like foot of the ape, and therefore has a furrow somewhat analogous to lines on man's palm.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Grover Krantz finds the correlation between the great weight of the creatures in question (as evidence, among other things, by the depth of footprints) and the anatomy of the foot, as it is revealed in the very same footprints, so natural and binding that he makes the following conclusion: "Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest."

It's the first time such an unambiguous statement is made by a professional anthropologist regarding the problem of relict hominoids, a statement made even more welcome by the fact that it came about as a result of study of material evidence which is the plastercasts and photographs of footprints.

COMPARISON TO THE NEANDERTHAL FOOT - As far as we know, none of the American researchers has compared the hominoid foot, as revealed in footprints, to the Neanderthal foot, reconstructed on the basis of fossil material.

In the Soviet Union this job has been done by Prof. B.F. Porshnev who noted a similarity in such features as lack of an arch, the width to length ratio, great mobility of toes (Porshnev, 1963).


Statue


It seems that a new and very important development in this direction of research is a comparison made by us between the calcaneus (heel bone) of the Neanderthal foot and that of North American Hominoids as shown in the materials of American hominologists. Grover Krantz, on his part, concludes that the Bigfoot has "enlarged heels", "the heel section must be correspondingly longer." He also writes that the creature's "ankle joint must be set relatively farther forward along the length of the foot", its length is expected to be "set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man."

Thus, this is also true of the Neanderthal foot, dramatically illustrating the above point.

To make things even more fascinating, the very same features show on the foot of the creature in Roger Patterson's filmstrip. To our knowledge, this fact has not been mentioned before by analysts of the film.

It follows that analysing a possible anatomy of the hominoid foot we find agreement in three, apparently, independent sources: 1. Roger Patterson's film; 2. Photographs and plaster casts of footprints obtained by Rene Dahinden and others, and analyzed by Grover Krantz; 3. Morphology of the Neanderthal foot.

As for the giant size of North American Hominoids, we think this cannot be a sufficient argument against Porshnev's standpoint since big variations in size are also true of the species Homo sapiens.

In our analysis we did not refer to Gigantopithecus because virtually nothing is known about that form of primates except their giant size. As for what is known of the foot of Australopithecus and "Homo habilis", it does not seem to fit the pattern of the hominoid foot we are dealing with.

NOT MAN-MADE - So our conclusion at this stage is the following: though it is not yet clear in what relation North American hominoids stand to the making of man, it is pretty clear now they themselves are not man-made.

Moscow , October, 1972. Dmitri Bayanov , Igor Bourtsev

References:
Porshnev, Boris,1963. Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa ? relictovykh gominoidakh (Present state of the problem of relict hominoids), Moscow, V.I.N.I.T.I.
Porshnev, Boris,1969. Troglodytidy i gominidy v sistematike i evolutsii vysshikh primatov (The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and evolution of higher primates) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, volume 188, issue 1.
Krantz, Grover, 1972. Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Urisson, Mikhail, 1966. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the related hominid forms, in the Collection of articles Iskopaemye Gominidy i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (Fossil Hominids and Man's Origin), Moscow, Nauka publishing house.


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


THE SECOND RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DR. DMITRI D. DONSKOY, CHIEF OF THE CHAIR OF BIOMECHANICS AT
THE USSR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE IN MOSCOW, USSR


Dr. Dmitri Donskoy

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of a two-footed creature in the 1967 "Bigfoot" footage and detailed examination of the successive stills from the footage one is given the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion shown therein, with all of the particular movements combined in an integral whole, suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all of the strides the movements of the arms, or upper limbs, and of the legs, or lower limbs, are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by a movement of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is essential for man as well as being quite natural for many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds, such as in walking or trotting movements.

The strides are energetic and strong, with the leg swinging far forward. When a man extends his leg in this manner he walks at a rapid pace and overcomes by momentum the breaking effect of the angled hurdle provided by the outstretched leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed so the more massive the biped the less speed is needed to overcome the breaking effect of an outthrust striding leg.

The arms have swinging motion, which suggests that the muscles are exerted at the commencement of each cycle, after which they relax, allowing the movements to continue by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong. After each heel strike the leg of the creature bends, absorbing the full weight of the body and smoothing over the harmony is the result of synergy, i.e., the combined operation of a whole group of muscles.

Since the creature is manlike in appearance as well as bipedal, its gait resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all of its movements indicate a much greater weight than is normally found in modern man. Its muscles appear to be much stronger and the walk swifter than that of the normal walk of a man.

There are certain characteristics of the creature's walk, which are difficult to explain in words. They might be called "expressiveness of movement." In modern man this is sometimes seen in a sporting or labour activity where economy and accuracy of movement is vital and essential to the activity. In study this particular characteristic can be seen by an experienced observer. In "expressiveness of movement" the motor systems upon which the particular quality is dependent are perfectly adapted to the tasks which they are called upon to perform. In other words, in the case of this creature, the movements have a neat perfection which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing in the study is the consistency of all of the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only complement each other but also interact in many ways.

All of these factors together allow us to evaluate the gait of the creature of the footage as a natural movement without any sign of the artfulness that one would see in an imitation. At the same time, with all of the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

Dmitri Donskoy, 1973."

http://www.cryptozoology.com/articles/dmitri.php

"Report on the Film of a Supposed Sasquatch

D.W. Grieve
The following report is based on a copy of a 16mm. film taken by Roger Patterson on October 20th, 1967, at Bluff Creek, Northern California, which was made available to me by René Dahinden in December 1971. In addition to Patterson's footage, the film includes a sequence showing a human being (height 6 ft. 5½ in.) walking over the same terrain.

The main purpose in analysing the Patterson film was to establish the extent to which the creature's gait resembled or differed from human gait. The bases for comparison were measurements of stride length, time of leg swing, speed of walking and the angular movements of the lower limb, parameters that are known for man at particular speeds of walking. Published data refer to humans, with light footwear or none, walking on hard level ground. In part of the film the creature is seen walking at a steady speed through a clearing of level ground, and is it data from this sequence that has been used for purposes of comparison with the human, pattern. Later parts of the film show an almost full posterior view, which permits some comparisons to be made between its body breadth and that of humans.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists.The film has several drawbacks for purposes of quantitative analysis. The unstable hand-held camera gave rise to intermittent frame blurring. Lighting conditions and the foliage in the background make it difficult to establish accurate outlines of the trunk and limbs even in un-blurred frames. The subject is walking obliquely across the field of view in that part of the film in which it is most clearly visible. The feet are not sufficiently visible to make useful statements about the ankle movements. Most importantly of all, no information is available as to framing speed used.

Body shape and size
Careful matching and superposition of images of the so-called Sasquatch and human film sequences yield an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft. 5 in. (196 cm.). This specimen lies therefore within the human range, although at its upper limits. Accurate measurements are impossible regarding features that fall within the body outline. Examination of several frames leads to the conclusion that the height of the hip joint, the gluteal fold and the finger tips are in similar proportions to the standing height as those found in humans. The shoulder height at the acromion appears slightly greater relative to the standing height (0.87:1) than in humans (0.82:1). Both the shoulder width and the hip width appear proportionately greater in the subject creature than in man (0.34:1 instead of 0.26:1; and 0.23:1 instead of 0.19:1, respectively).

If we argue that the subject has similar vertical proportions to man (ignoring the higher shoulders) and has breadths and circumferences about 25 per cent greater proportionally, then the weight is likely to be 50-60 per cent greater in the subject than in a man of the same height. The additional shoulder height and the unknown correction that should be allowed for the presence of hair will have opposite effects upon an estimate of weight. Earlier comments that this specimen was "just under 7 ft. in height and extremely heavy" seem rather extravagant. The present analysis suggests that Sasquatch was 6 ft. 5 in. in height, with a weight of about 280 lb (127 kg.) and a foot length (mean of 4 observations) of about 13.3 in. (34 cm.).

Timing of the gait
Because the framing speed is unknown, the timing of the various phases of the gait was done in terms of the numbers of frames. Five independent estimates of the complete cycle time were made, from 'R. toe-off', 'L. toe-off, 'R. foot passing L.', 'L. foot passing R.' and 'L. heel strike' respectively giving:

Complete cycle time = 22.5 frames (range 21.5 - 23.5). Four independent estimates of the swing phase, or single support phase for the contra-lateral limb, from toe-off to heel strike, gave:

Saving phase, or single support = 8.5 frames (same in each case). The above therefore indicates a total period of support of 14 frames and periods of double support (both feet on the ground) of 2.75 fames. A minimum uncertainty of ± 0.5 frames may be assumed.

Stride length
The film provides an oblique view and no clues exist that can lead to an accurate measurement of the obliquity of the direction of walk which was judged to be not less than 20 degrees and not more than 35 degrees to the image plane of the camera. The obliquity gives rise to an apparent grouping of left and right foot placements which could in reality have been symmetrical with respect to distance in the line of progression. The distance on the film between successive placements of the left toot was 1.20 X the standing height. It an obliquity of 27 degrees is assumed, a stride length of 1.34 X the standing height is obtained. The corresponding values in modern man for 20 degrees and 35 degrees obliquity are 1.27 and 1.46 respectively.

A complete set of tracings of the subject were made, and in every case when the limb outlines were sufficiently clear a construction of the axes of the thigh and shank were made. The angles of the segments to the vertical were measured as they appeared on the film. Because of the obliquity of the walk to the image plane of the camera (assumed to be 27 degrees), the actual angles of the limb segments to the vertical in the sagittal plane were computed by dividing the tangent of the apparent angles by the cosine of 27 degrees. This gave the tangent of the desired angle in each case, from which the actual thigh and shank angles were obtained. The knee-angle was obtained as the difference between the thigh and shank angles. A summary of the observations is given in the following table.

Frame event or
No./Comment Angles measured on left limb
Apparent on film Corrected for 27 degs obliquity
Thigh Knee Shank Thigh Knee Shank
3. R. toe-off + 7 14 - 7 + 8 16 - 3
4. + 1 19 -18 + 1 21 -20
5. - 7 10 -17 - 8 11 -19
6. blurred -18 3 -21 -20 3 -23
7 R. foot pass L. uncertain
8 of
9 limb
10 outlines
11 R. heel strike here
12 R. heel strike -27 13 -40 -30 13 -43
13 L. toe-off -25 22 -47 -28 22 -50
14 0 61 -61 0 64 -64
15 +10 63 -53 +11 67 -56
16 L. foot pass R. +10 64 -54 +11 68 -57
17 +13 62 -49 +14 66 -52
18 +17 45 -28 +19 50 -31
19 +23 38 -15 +25 41 -16
20 +28 29 -1 +31 32 - 1
21 L. heel strike +17 : 6 +11 +19 7 +12
22 L. heel strike +20 10 +10 +22 11 +11
23 +19 16 + 3 +21 18 + 3
24 R. toe-off +17 18 - 1 +19 20 - 1
25 R. toe-off +19 33 -14 +21 36 -15
26 +8 15 -7 + 9 16 -7
27 +2 19 -17 + 2 21 -19
28 R. foot pass L. + 4 28 -24 + 4 30 -26
29 R. foot pass L. no measurement

The pattern of movement, notably the 30 degrees of knee flexion following heel strike, the hip extension during support that produces a thigh angle of 30 dregrees behind the vertical, the large total thigh excursion of 61 degrees, and the considerable (46 degrees) knee flexion following toe-off, are features very similar to those for humans walking at high speed. Under these cinditions, humans woul,d have a stride length of 1.2 X stature or more, a time of swing of about 0.35 sec, and a speed of swing of about 1.5 X stature per second.

Conclusions
The unknown framing speed is crucial to the interpretation of the data. It is likely that the filming was done at either 16, 18, or 24 frames per second and each possibility is considered below.

16 fps 18 fps 24 fps
Stride length approx. 262 cm 262 cm 262 cm
Stride/Stature 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46
Speed approx 6.7 km/hr 7.5 km/hr 10.0 km/hr
Speed/Stature 0.9 - 1.04 sec 1.02 - 1.17 1.35 - 1.56
Time for complete cycle 1.41 sec 1.25 sec 0.94 sec
Time of swing 0.53 sec 0.47 sec 0.35 sec
Total time of support 0.88 sec 0.78 sec 0.58 sec
One period double support 0.17 sec 0.15 sec 0.11 sec

If 16 fps is assumed, the cycle time and the time of swing are in a typical human combination but much longer in duration than one would expect for the stride and the pattern of limb movement. It is as if a human were executing a high speed pattern in slow motion. It is very unlikely that more massive limbs would account for such a combination of variables. If the framing speed was indeed 16 fps it would be reasonable to conclude that the metabolic cost of locomotion was unnecessarily high per unit distance or that the neuromuscular system was very different to that in humans. With these considerations in mind it seems unlikely that the film was taken at 16 frames per second.

Similar conclusions apply to the combination of variables if we assume 18 fps. In both cases, a human would exhibit very little knee flexion following heel strike and little further knee flexion following toe-off at these times of cycle and swing. It is pertinent that subject has similar linear proportions to man and therefore would be unlikely to exhibit a totally different pattern of gait unless the intrinsic properties of the limb muscles or the nervous system were greatly different to that in man.

If the film was taken at 24 fps, Sasquatch walked with a gait pattern very similar in most respects to a man walking at high speed. The cycle time is slightly greater than expected and the hip joint appears to be more flexible in extension than one would expect in man. If the framing speed were higher than 24 fps the similarity to man's gait is even more striking.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man.

D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D.
Reader in Biomechanics
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine
London"

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/grieve.html

[Mad Hom]

Not really. I was getting pissed off at the level of apology coming from people like yourself who attempted to justify his games.



Of course, you can't make any hay over Dfoot's utter failure, so you focus on my arguments with the apologists.



Guess, Einstein.........

Fudd...your denial..is astonishing. As I recall you had a hook firmly embedded in your mouth with regards to Dfoot's subterfuge....It's been awhile since I read every page...or at least the part with Dfoot in it..of this thread....or any of the Think Tank version of Dfoot's hitting a little to close to home Patty Hoax....but as I recall Fudd you bought it for awhile...so shut your hole about how much of a failure it was....would ya?

Oh and by the way...just checked Cryptomundo.com...and darn the luck...

Still no actual usable proof of Bigfoot!!!

[Mad Hom]

She's never walked just like a human.

The biomechanical analyses were done out of the country. How would reports from obscure British and Russian Scientists help business, especially after the tour was over?

Note the dates on the reports below.

Krantz couldn't find anyone to do an analysis. He did his own. It's quite thorough. He even found an error in Grieve.

I don't know what all the problems are, but the original is not available at this time. I doubt much more could be learned from it now. There's been information obtained from it since it was digitalized in an age where biomechanics is no longer in its infancy.

Her gait is like that of Australopithecines, according to a new analysis. How would Roger have known to put that in before Lucy's knee was discovered?


"THE FIRST RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DMITRI BAYANOV AND IGOR BOURTSEV OF THE DARWIN MUSEUM, MOSCOW

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FILM - Roger Patterson's filmstrip shows a hairy man-like creature, walking erect, having well-developed breasts and buttocks. The last three points, if we accept for a time the authenticity of the creature, indicate its belonging in the Hominid, not the Pongid (anthropoid), line of evolution of higher primates.


Proof?


Morphology of the head shows a very outstanding brow ridge, a low bridge of the nose, very pronounced prognatism, a cone-shaped back of the head.

Judging by the well-developed breasts the creature is female. However, the muscles of the back, arms and legs are so much in relief that they call for comparison with those of a heavy weightlifter.

The creature "has no neck," or at least the neck is not to be detected at first sight. Looking back the creature turns its upper torso along with the head to a much greater extent than would normally a human being. This might indicate a somewhat different attachment of the skull to the spine than in man, and a strong development of the neck muscles which conceal a short, sort of simian, neck.

LOCOMOTION AS SEEN IN THE FILM - It seems smooth and resilient like that of a big quadrupedal animal. One gets the impression that the creature steps on slightly bent legs. If that is the case the impact on the heels should be less manifest than in man's walk, and the hominoid tracks, usually rather even in depth, seem to corroborate this conclusion. While walking the creature swings its arms intensely using them as walking beams as it were.

COMPARISON TO SUPPOSED GAIT OF NEANDERTHALER - Prof. Boris Porshnev, who put forward the Neanderthal hypothesis ot the relict hominoid origin, in his monograph (1963), page 288, refers to the opinions of Russian anthropologists V.P. Yakimov, G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky and V.V. Bounak concerning the walk of Neanderthalers as construed by analysts of fossil material. We find it very significant that the two characteristics mentioned above-i.e. less impact on the heels and arms swinging-are listed by anthropologists as supposed traits of Neanderthal locomotion, while slightly bent legs are ascribed to Neanderthalers even in a standing position.

THE HOMINOID FOOT - The main features standing out in both the American and Soviet (Russian) material: 1. Tracks show flat feet (without an arch). 2. The width of the foot in proportion to the length is much greater than in man's foot. 3. The hominoid foot is generally much bigger than man's.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Besides, as has been often noted by late Pyotr Smolin, chairman of the Hominoid Problem Seminar at the Darwin Museum in Moscow, the hominoid foot is distinguished by a great mobility of its toes which can bend very much or fully extend or spread very widely.

One more peculiarity: the so-called double ball at the back of the big toe as evidenced in many North American tracks (Green, 1968; Krantz, 1972). We find Grover Krantz's explanation of this feature very interesting, and we especially value at this stage the conclusion drawn by him concerning the size of the creature's calcaneus (heel bone). In some frames the creature's foot seems to have an unnaturally protruding heel. To a casual observer this may look like a sticking out edge of an artificial sole, but to those who know better this is an omen of the creature's reality.

As for the double ball itself we would like to make here the following remark. The double ball is made up not only of two bulges of tissue but also of a furrow between them, which is like a kind of fold on the sole. Hence the question can also be put this way. Why is a fold formed at this spot on the hominoid sole?

The answer, probably, can be like this: because the hominoid foot is not so rigid as man's foot, it still retains a certain measure of mobility inherited from the hand-like foot of the ape, and therefore has a furrow somewhat analogous to lines on man's palm.


Bourtsev, Krantz, and Bayanov


Grover Krantz finds the correlation between the great weight of the creatures in question (as evidence, among other things, by the depth of footprints) and the anatomy of the foot, as it is revealed in the very same footprints, so natural and binding that he makes the following conclusion: "Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest."

It's the first time such an unambiguous statement is made by a professional anthropologist regarding the problem of relict hominoids, a statement made even more welcome by the fact that it came about as a result of study of material evidence which is the plastercasts and photographs of footprints.

COMPARISON TO THE NEANDERTHAL FOOT - As far as we know, none of the American researchers has compared the hominoid foot, as revealed in footprints, to the Neanderthal foot, reconstructed on the basis of fossil material.

In the Soviet Union this job has been done by Prof. B.F. Porshnev who noted a similarity in such features as lack of an arch, the width to length ratio, great mobility of toes (Porshnev, 1963).


Statue


It seems that a new and very important development in this direction of research is a comparison made by us between the calcaneus (heel bone) of the Neanderthal foot and that of North American Hominoids as shown in the materials of American hominologists. Grover Krantz, on his part, concludes that the Bigfoot has "enlarged heels", "the heel section must be correspondingly longer." He also writes that the creature's "ankle joint must be set relatively farther forward along the length of the foot", its length is expected to be "set relatively farther forward on the foot than in man."

Thus, this is also true of the Neanderthal foot, dramatically illustrating the above point.

To make things even more fascinating, the very same features show on the foot of the creature in Roger Patterson's filmstrip. To our knowledge, this fact has not been mentioned before by analysts of the film.

It follows that analysing a possible anatomy of the hominoid foot we find agreement in three, apparently, independent sources: 1. Roger Patterson's film; 2. Photographs and plaster casts of footprints obtained by Rene Dahinden and others, and analyzed by Grover Krantz; 3. Morphology of the Neanderthal foot.

As for the giant size of North American Hominoids, we think this cannot be a sufficient argument against Porshnev's standpoint since big variations in size are also true of the species Homo sapiens.

In our analysis we did not refer to Gigantopithecus because virtually nothing is known about that form of primates except their giant size. As for what is known of the foot of Australopithecus and "Homo habilis", it does not seem to fit the pattern of the hominoid foot we are dealing with.

NOT MAN-MADE - So our conclusion at this stage is the following: though it is not yet clear in what relation North American hominoids stand to the making of man, it is pretty clear now they themselves are not man-made.

Moscow , October, 1972. Dmitri Bayanov , Igor Bourtsev

References:
Porshnev, Boris,1963. Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa ? relictovykh gominoidakh (Present state of the problem of relict hominoids), Moscow, V.I.N.I.T.I.
Porshnev, Boris,1969. Troglodytidy i gominidy v sistematike i evolutsii vysshikh primatov (The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and evolution of higher primates) in Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, volume 188, issue 1.
Krantz, Grover, 1972. Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 6, No. 1.
Urisson, Mikhail, 1966. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the related hominid forms, in the Collection of articles Iskopaemye Gominidy i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (Fossil Hominids and Man's Origin), Moscow, Nauka publishing house.


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


THE SECOND RUSSIAN REPORT ON THE 1967 BIGFOOT FILM FOOTAGE,
BY DR. DMITRI D. DONSKOY, CHIEF OF THE CHAIR OF BIOMECHANICS AT
THE USSR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PHYSICAL CULTURE IN MOSCOW, USSR


Dr. Dmitri Donskoy

As a result of repeated viewings of the walk of a two-footed creature in the 1967 "Bigfoot" footage and detailed examination of the successive stills from the footage one is given the impression of a fully spontaneous and highly efficient pattern of locomotion shown therein, with all of the particular movements combined in an integral whole, suggesting a smoothly operating and coherent system.

In all of the strides the movements of the arms, or upper limbs, and of the legs, or lower limbs, are well coordinated. A forward swing of the right arm, for example, is accompanied by a movement of the left leg. This is called cross-limb coordination and is essential for man as well as being quite natural for many patterns of locomotion in quadrupeds, such as in walking or trotting movements.

The strides are energetic and strong, with the leg swinging far forward. When a man extends his leg in this manner he walks at a rapid pace and overcomes by momentum the breaking effect of the angled hurdle provided by the outstretched leg. Momentum is proportional to mass and speed so the more massive the biped the less speed is needed to overcome the breaking effect of an outthrust striding leg.

The arms have swinging motion, which suggests that the muscles are exerted at the commencement of each cycle, after which they relax, allowing the movements to continue by momentum. The character of the arm movements indicates that the arms are massive and the muscles strong. After each heel strike the leg of the creature bends, absorbing the full weight of the body and smoothing over the harmony is the result of synergy, i.e., the combined operation of a whole group of muscles.

Since the creature is manlike in appearance as well as bipedal, its gait resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all of its movements indicate a much greater weight than is normally found in modern man. Its muscles appear to be much stronger and the walk swifter than that of the normal walk of a man.

There are certain characteristics of the creature's walk, which are difficult to explain in words. They might be called "expressiveness of movement." In modern man this is sometimes seen in a sporting or labour activity where economy and accuracy of movement is vital and essential to the activity. In study this particular characteristic can be seen by an experienced observer. In "expressiveness of movement" the motor systems upon which the particular quality is dependent are perfectly adapted to the tasks which they are called upon to perform. In other words, in the case of this creature, the movements have a neat perfection which through regular use have become habitual and automatic.

On the whole the most important thing in the study is the consistency of all of the above-mentioned characteristics. They not only complement each other but also interact in many ways.

All of these factors together allow us to evaluate the gait of the creature of the footage as a natural movement without any sign of the artfulness that one would see in an imitation. At the same time, with all of the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man.

Dmitri Donskoy, 1973."

http://www.cryptozoology.com/articles/dmitri.php

"Report on the Film of a Supposed Sasquatch

D.W. Grieve
The following report is based on a copy of a 16mm. film taken by Roger Patterson on October 20th, 1967, at Bluff Creek, Northern California, which was made available to me by René Dahinden in December 1971. In addition to Patterson's footage, the film includes a sequence showing a human being (height 6 ft. 5½ in.) walking over the same terrain.

The main purpose in analysing the Patterson film was to establish the extent to which the creature's gait resembled or differed from human gait. The bases for comparison were measurements of stride length, time of leg swing, speed of walking and the angular movements of the lower limb, parameters that are known for man at particular speeds of walking. Published data refer to humans, with light footwear or none, walking on hard level ground. In part of the film the creature is seen walking at a steady speed through a clearing of level ground, and is it data from this sequence that has been used for purposes of comparison with the human, pattern. Later parts of the film show an almost full posterior view, which permits some comparisons to be made between its body breadth and that of humans.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists.The film has several drawbacks for purposes of quantitative analysis. The unstable hand-held camera gave rise to intermittent frame blurring. Lighting conditions and the foliage in the background make it difficult to establish accurate outlines of the trunk and limbs even in un-blurred frames. The subject is walking obliquely across the field of view in that part of the film in which it is most clearly visible. The feet are not sufficiently visible to make useful statements about the ankle movements. Most importantly of all, no information is available as to framing speed used.

Body shape and size
Careful matching and superposition of images of the so-called Sasquatch and human film sequences yield an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft. 5 in. (196 cm.). This specimen lies therefore within the human range, although at its upper limits. Accurate measurements are impossible regarding features that fall within the body outline. Examination of several frames leads to the conclusion that the height of the hip joint, the gluteal fold and the finger tips are in similar proportions to the standing height as those found in humans. The shoulder height at the acromion appears slightly greater relative to the standing height (0.87:1) than in humans (0.82:1). Both the shoulder width and the hip width appear proportionately greater in the subject creature than in man (0.34:1 instead of 0.26:1; and 0.23:1 instead of 0.19:1, respectively).

If we argue that the subject has similar vertical proportions to man (ignoring the higher shoulders) and has breadths and circumferences about 25 per cent greater proportionally, then the weight is likely to be 50-60 per cent greater in the subject than in a man of the same height. The additional shoulder height and the unknown correction that should be allowed for the presence of hair will have opposite effects upon an estimate of weight. Earlier comments that this specimen was "just under 7 ft. in height and extremely heavy" seem rather extravagant. The present analysis suggests that Sasquatch was 6 ft. 5 in. in height, with a weight of about 280 lb (127 kg.) and a foot length (mean of 4 observations) of about 13.3 in. (34 cm.).

Timing of the gait
Because the framing speed is unknown, the timing of the various phases of the gait was done in terms of the numbers of frames. Five independent estimates of the complete cycle time were made, from 'R. toe-off', 'L. toe-off, 'R. foot passing L.', 'L. foot passing R.' and 'L. heel strike' respectively giving:

Complete cycle time = 22.5 frames (range 21.5 - 23.5). Four independent estimates of the swing phase, or single support phase for the contra-lateral limb, from toe-off to heel strike, gave:

Saving phase, or single support = 8.5 frames (same in each case). The above therefore indicates a total period of support of 14 frames and periods of double support (both feet on the ground) of 2.75 fames. A minimum uncertainty of ± 0.5 frames may be assumed.

Stride length
The film provides an oblique view and no clues exist that can lead to an accurate measurement of the obliquity of the direction of walk which was judged to be not less than 20 degrees and not more than 35 degrees to the image plane of the camera. The obliquity gives rise to an apparent grouping of left and right foot placements which could in reality have been symmetrical with respect to distance in the line of progression. The distance on the film between successive placements of the left toot was 1.20 X the standing height. It an obliquity of 27 degrees is assumed, a stride length of 1.34 X the standing height is obtained. The corresponding values in modern man for 20 degrees and 35 degrees obliquity are 1.27 and 1.46 respectively.

A complete set of tracings of the subject were made, and in every case when the limb outlines were sufficiently clear a construction of the axes of the thigh and shank were made. The angles of the segments to the vertical were measured as they appeared on the film. Because of the obliquity of the walk to the image plane of the camera (assumed to be 27 degrees), the actual angles of the limb segments to the vertical in the sagittal plane were computed by dividing the tangent of the apparent angles by the cosine of 27 degrees. This gave the tangent of the desired angle in each case, from which the actual thigh and shank angles were obtained. The knee-angle was obtained as the difference between the thigh and shank angles. A summary of the observations is given in the following table.

Frame event or
No./Comment Angles measured on left limb
Apparent on film Corrected for 27 degs obliquity
Thigh Knee Shank Thigh Knee Shank
3. R. toe-off + 7 14 - 7 + 8 16 - 3
4. + 1 19 -18 + 1 21 -20
5. - 7 10 -17 - 8 11 -19
6. blurred -18 3 -21 -20 3 -23
7 R. foot pass L. uncertain
8 of
9 limb
10 outlines
11 R. heel strike here
12 R. heel strike -27 13 -40 -30 13 -43
13 L. toe-off -25 22 -47 -28 22 -50
14 0 61 -61 0 64 -64
15 +10 63 -53 +11 67 -56
16 L. foot pass R. +10 64 -54 +11 68 -57
17 +13 62 -49 +14 66 -52
18 +17 45 -28 +19 50 -31
19 +23 38 -15 +25 41 -16
20 +28 29 -1 +31 32 - 1
21 L. heel strike +17 : 6 +11 +19 7 +12
22 L. heel strike +20 10 +10 +22 11 +11
23 +19 16 + 3 +21 18 + 3
24 R. toe-off +17 18 - 1 +19 20 - 1
25 R. toe-off +19 33 -14 +21 36 -15
26 +8 15 -7 + 9 16 -7
27 +2 19 -17 + 2 21 -19
28 R. foot pass L. + 4 28 -24 + 4 30 -26
29 R. foot pass L. no measurement

The pattern of movement, notably the 30 degrees of knee flexion following heel strike, the hip extension during support that produces a thigh angle of 30 dregrees behind the vertical, the large total thigh excursion of 61 degrees, and the considerable (46 degrees) knee flexion following toe-off, are features very similar to those for humans walking at high speed. Under these cinditions, humans woul,d have a stride length of 1.2 X stature or more, a time of swing of about 0.35 sec, and a speed of swing of about 1.5 X stature per second.

Conclusions
The unknown framing speed is crucial to the interpretation of the data. It is likely that the filming was done at either 16, 18, or 24 frames per second and each possibility is considered below.

16 fps 18 fps 24 fps
Stride length approx. 262 cm 262 cm 262 cm
Stride/Stature 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46 1.27 - 1.46
Speed approx 6.7 km/hr 7.5 km/hr 10.0 km/hr
Speed/Stature 0.9 - 1.04 sec 1.02 - 1.17 1.35 - 1.56
Time for complete cycle 1.41 sec 1.25 sec 0.94 sec
Time of swing 0.53 sec 0.47 sec 0.35 sec
Total time of support 0.88 sec 0.78 sec 0.58 sec
One period double support 0.17 sec 0.15 sec 0.11 sec

If 16 fps is assumed, the cycle time and the time of swing are in a typical human combination but much longer in duration than one would expect for the stride and the pattern of limb movement. It is as if a human were executing a high speed pattern in slow motion. It is very unlikely that more massive limbs would account for such a combination of variables. If the framing speed was indeed 16 fps it would be reasonable to conclude that the metabolic cost of locomotion was unnecessarily high per unit distance or that the neuromuscular system was very different to that in humans. With these considerations in mind it seems unlikely that the film was taken at 16 frames per second.

Similar conclusions apply to the combination of variables if we assume 18 fps. In both cases, a human would exhibit very little knee flexion following heel strike and little further knee flexion following toe-off at these times of cycle and swing. It is pertinent that subject has similar linear proportions to man and therefore would be unlikely to exhibit a totally different pattern of gait unless the intrinsic properties of the limb muscles or the nervous system were greatly different to that in man.

If the film was taken at 24 fps, Sasquatch walked with a gait pattern very similar in most respects to a man walking at high speed. The cycle time is slightly greater than expected and the hip joint appears to be more flexible in extension than one would expect in man. If the framing speed were higher than 24 fps the similarity to man's gait is even more striking.

My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man.

D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D.
Reader in Biomechanics
Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine
London"

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/grieve.html

For the love of all that's right with the world woman...have you not heard of...paraphrasing!??! A few links and your take will suffice LAL...geeeeesh!!

[Morrigan]

Stop quoting huge blocks of texts.

[Skeptical Greg]

Lu believes the existance of thousands of words about Bigfoot, somehow means Bigfoot exists . As in Meldrum's new book. Every time a copy rolls off the press, a Bigfoot and possibly an infant or two, materializes somewhere..

Still the queen of SPAM...

( we will probably read again how copius pasting is not Spam )

[LTC8K6]

She's never walked just like a human.

Lu, why don't you quote the scientists who thought Patty walked like a human? You know there are several who gave this opinion when they viewed PGF. You know it, and I know it. No need to pretend.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not really. I was getting pissed off at the level of apology coming from people like yourself who attempted to justify his games.



Of course, you can't make any hay over Dfoot's utter failure, so you focus on my arguments with the apologists.

Fudd...your denial..is astonishing. As I recall you had a hook firmly embedded in your mouth with regards to Dfoot's subterfuge....

You recall incorrectly. And if you'd like, you can always go to the appropriate BFF thread, check your claim, and post the appropriate evidence of that.

It's been awhile since I read every page...or at least the part with Dfoot in it..of this thread....or any of the Think Tank version of Dfoot's hitting a little to close to home Patty Hoax....but as I recall Fudd you bought it for awhile...so shut your hole about how much of a failure it was....would ya?

No.

[Huntster]

Stop quoting huge blocks of texts.

Too much to actually read?

It's much easier to debate from a position of opinion?

[LAL]

Yep. By no definition of spam is that spam, Greg.

Have I been demoted? I thought I was now the Queen of Ad Homs. That's quite an honor on a board that has so many of them.

The text fits within the limit. I know from posting links they seldom get clicked and I have the vain hope that someone might actually read the reports.

I don't like paraphrasing; I like direct quotes. And thanks for reposting the huge block of text, MH. Maybe someone will read it the second time around.

Which scientists are you referring to, Bill? Please name names and cite references.

Now, does anyone understand what the reports say?

[LAL]

You recall incorrectly. And if you'd like, you can always go to the appropriate BFF thread, check your claim, and post the appropriate evidence of that.


I provided the link. Would I be correct in assuming he didn't click it?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You recall incorrectly. And if you'd like, you can always go to the appropriate BFF thread, check your claim, and post the appropriate evidence of that.
I provided the link. Would I be correct in assuming he didn't click it?

I would say that's a reasonable assumption.

But it could also be that he won't find any evidence there to support his careless claim...............

[Mad Hom]

Too much to actually read?

It's much easier to debate from a position of opinion?

As always Fudster....your take is pathetic. Whate we're saying is LAL can simply post the links...and do some paraphrasing...that will suffice. There is no need to post a whole book..........just excerpts.

Here's how links work...Fuddnick. It's like a magic portal to another world...where alot of text can exist without taking up 3/4 of the page with you post.

Geeeeeesh.......without LAL this Thread would probably be like 20 pages shorter.

[Morrigan]

Too much to actually read?

It's much easier to debate from a position of opinion?

Whate we're saying is LAL can simply post the links...and do some paraphrasing...that will suffice. There is no need to post a whole book..........just excerpts.


You're both wrong. I was adressing Mad Hom for quoting the huge block of text that was already posted by LAL (which was kind of rude, yes, but if s/he doesn't want to link-and-paraphrase, fine).

It's very irritating when people quote/repeat a long-ass text, even more so when there's just a useless one-liner below it.

[Huntster]

....Here's how links work...Fuddnick. It's like a magic portal to another world...where alot of text can exist without taking up 3/4 of the page with you post.

You know how links work?

Then how come you never supply any?

Because your position is pure opinion, with no substantiation?

Geeeeeesh.......without LAL this Thread would probably be like 20 pages shorter.

Well, I guess we all owe you much thanks for keeping this thread shorter, because you never post links.

[LTC8K6]

Why don't you quote them, Lu?

That's all I want to know. You and I already know who the scientists are, since we've been over this ground several times already. I'm not interested in that anymore.

I just want to know why you don't quote them.

[LAL]

Why don't you quote them, Lu?

That's all I want to know. You and I already know who the scientists are, since we've been over this ground several times already. I'm not interested in that anymore.

I just want to know why you don't quote them.

For starters, I can't think of any who actually studied the film who concluded it walked like a human. Some tried to argue (after one showing) it walked like a man but had breasts. (There's no gender difference in ape gaits. A large bipedal animal with small headed infants would have no need of a wide pelvis. Such a structure on the PGF subject would have been indicative of a hoax.)

Did you just want to see Montagna crow? You can Google that yourself.

Do you guys ever argue any of the other evidence from the Bluff Creek area? How about the 17" cast taken by the geologist/geophysicist, Dr. Michael Tripp, who calculated the trackmaker's weight at circa 800 lbs., for instance?

Or out of the area? How about all the Nooksack River activity in 1969? Have you been over that ground several times already?

[LAL]

You're both wrong. I was adressing Mad Hom for quoting the huge block of text that was already posted by LAL (which was kind of rude, yes, but if s/he doesn't want to link-and-paraphrase, fine).

It's very irritating when people quote/repeat a long-ass text, even more so when there's just a useless one-liner below it.

You're under no obligation to read any of it. (That's one sure way to stay ignorant on the subject. :)) Biomechanics isn't everyone's dish of tea.

[Skeptic Guy]

Are we really discussing whether the guy in the monkey suit was actually a guy in a money suit or a real monkey...er, bigfoot? Seems like a waste of typing.

In fact, I believe there was a book out a year or so ago that identified the guy who made and sold them the suit. If I remember correctly he lived in Louisana and sold these suits to Hollywood.

[RayG]

For starters, I can't think of any who actually studied the film who concluded it walked like a human.

Define "walked like a human". It could be argued that anything walking upright on two legs is walking like a human. (As these scientists point out...) :D

"Well, you know, that looks to me very much like a human walk. Its gait is very much of a human type gait..." -- Geoffrey Bourne, Director, Yerkes Regional Primate Center, Emory University, Atlanta."Since the creature is man-like and bipedal its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man... such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely non-typical of man." -- Dmitri Donskoy, Chief of the Chair of Biomechanics, USSR's Central Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow.I'd argue that 'non-typical' doesn't equate to 'non-human'. :cool:

RayG

[bjb]

In the bigfoot episode of "Is It Real?", Bob H. came on towards the near end. His normal walk looks just like the Bigfoot walk. Maybe the Russian guy thinks the walk is non-typical of a man but maybe it is typical for Bob H. while he's wearing a heavy bigfoot costume!

[LAL]

Are we really discussing whether the guy in the monkey suit was actually a guy in a money suit or a real monkey...er, bigfoot? Seems like a waste of typing.

In fact, I believe there was a book out a year or so ago that identified the guy who made and sold them the suit. If I remember correctly he lived in Louisana and sold these suits to Hollywood.

You mean The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story (Prometheus Books 2004), by Greg Long, and Phillip Morris of Charlotte, NC, respectively.

[RayG]

For starters, I can't think of any [scientists] who actually studied the film who concluded it walked like a human.


How about anthropologists David Daegling (associate professor of anthropology at Yale University), and Daniel O. Schmitt (assistant professor in the Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and heads the Vertebrate Movement Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center)?

They studied the film and concluded that, "the gait of the film subject is easily reproducible by human beings of average stature."*

RayG

* Bigfoot's screen test - analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot

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

[Steven Howard]

Are we really discussing whether the guy in the monkey suit was actually a guy in a money suit or a real monkey...er, bigfoot? Seems like a waste of typing.

That seems to be what it's come down to. We started out with a slightly more interesting conversation about how good of a monkey suit it was.

[SphereGuy]

That seems to be what it's come down to. We started out with a slightly more interesting conversation about how good of a monkey suit it was.

What if it was a monkey in a monkey suit?

[LTC8K6]

I wonder who said this when shown the PGF early on?

The creature portrayed is a primate and clearly hominid rather than pongid. Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb are all manifestly human, together with the great development of the mammary glands.

This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that it is indeed a
homo sapiens masquerading as a hairy giant.

All I can say, at this stage, is that if this was a masquerade,
it was extremely well done and effective. Without tangible
evidence in the form of skeletal parts, a cast of the dentition or similar
physical material, I cannot pronounce beyond this. However,
the most interesting evidence they have so painstakingly produced should
serve to stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the
area, with the object of obtaining the required physical data.

Footers usually only quote the last part.

[LTC8K6]

I wonder why Meldrum doesn't realize that his mid-tarsal break claim calls into question nearly all of the footprint casts and photos in existence?

[LAL]

I wonder why Meldrum doesn't realize that his mid-tarsal break claim calls into question nearly all of the footprint casts and photos in existence?

Why is that? The foot is put down flat most of the time. In a few trackways, some of the prints show the bend.

Check these out:

[LAL]

The top you know. Middle is chimp, bottom is Laetoli.

[LAL]

How about anthropologists David Daegling (associate professor of anthropology at Yale University), and Daniel O. Schmitt (assistant professor in the Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and heads the Vertebrate Movement Laboratory at Duke University Medical Center)?

They studied the film and concluded that, "the gait of the film subject is easily reproducible by human beings of average stature."*

RayG

* Bigfoot's screen test - analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot

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

This link's better:

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

The argument is pretty much based on the height estimates being too tall. See Rick Noll's trig on that.

They don't address the rotating knees ("swimming gait"), but that was a later discovery. Australopithecines may have walked with bent knees in much the same manner.

Check the proportions even at comparable height:

[LAL]

Geeeeeesh.......without LAL this Thread would probably be like 20 pages shorter.

It's not 120 pages to begin with. Are you on the wrong thread?

[SphereGuy]

I'm watching a show on PBS right now about gorillas. They even showed some walking upright for a few steps. Just some observations: Very prominent butt crack, you can see the butt muscles move through the fur, especially the right butt going up while the left butt is going down while walking, (I'm sure you can picture this), fur is smooth from knees up into the torso. If you look at the PG film (especially the stabalized version) it looks like she is wearing a fur diaper. You can see here, from an earlier post:

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/buttcomp.gif
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

Watching the gorillas and the PG film side by side, which I'm doing right now, is enlightening. Patti's diaper just jumps right out at you and you wonder how anyone can be fooled by this suit.

[Huntster]

I wonder who said this when shown the PGF early on?

Quote:
The creature portrayed is a primate and clearly hominid rather than pongid. Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb are all manifestly human, together with the great development of the mammary glands.

This does not, of course, preclude the possibility that it is indeed a
homo sapiens masquerading as a hairy giant.

All I can say, at this stage, is that if this was a masquerade,
it was extremely well done and effective. Without tangible
evidence in the form of skeletal parts, a cast of the dentition or similar
physical material, I cannot pronounce beyond this. However,
the most interesting evidence they have so painstakingly produced should
serve to stimulate the formation of a truly scientific expedition to the
area, with the object of obtaining the required physical data.
I wonder who said this when shown the PGF early on?

I don't know. Was it Sanderson?

At any rate, that's what this thread is about. If it was a fake, it was a damned good one. So good, in fact, that some 35 years later, when the film is digitized and stabilized, it looks even better.

[Huntster]

....Patti's diaper just jumps right out at you and you wonder how anyone can be fooled by this suit.

Thanks for the stabilized footage link.

It was October 20th. Ever skin a bear's ass in the fall? A moose? Elk?

Write to us what you find under the hide. Please be descriptive.

[RayG]

It was October 20th. Ever skin a bear's ass in the fall? A moose? Elk?

More importantly, ever skin a squatch's a$$ in the fall?

Don't biped a$$es and quadruped a$$es differ?

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It was October 20th. Ever skin a bear's ass in the fall? A moose? Elk?
More importantly, ever skin a squatch's a$$ in the fall?

Nope. I've never undressed a sasquatch's ass. I'm not likely to, either.

Don't biped a$$es and quadruped a$$es differ?

In some ways, yeah. In others, no.

And a human ass sitting in front of a computer might differ from a human ass well exercised, and both will likely differ substantially from the ass of an animal that lives in a "temperate" environment.

[SphereGuy]

You guys are fanatical. If Gimlin pulled the suit out of his basement and confessed everything you guys would still be swearing up and down that the footage is real. I've hunted moose and chased bears out of our garbage, in winter even, what's your point? How does that explain Patti's diaper?

[Huntster]

You guys are fanatical. If Gimlin pulled the suit out of his basement and confessed everything you guys would still be swearing up and down that the footage is real.

Nope. I'd be waiting for an examination of the suit.

I've hunted moose and chased bears out of our garbage, in winter even, what's your point?

Tell me what you saw when you dressed the moose's ass.

How does that explain Patti's diaper?

Tell me what you saw on the moose's ass.

[SphereGuy]

Nope. I'd be waiting for an examination of the suit.

See? You proved my point. Even an all-out confession wouldn't convince you.

When I see a moose walking away from me I can see the butt moving. Along with any other animal I've ever seen. I've never dressed a moose so I can't tell you, biologically speaking what's under the fur, probably fat, but I can tell you it moves, and before you ask, yes, I've seen moose walking away from me, in winter, in snow. Patti's diaper doesn't move because it's part of suit.

Now go ahead and make a snide remark, or ask another question without answering one. You are obviously the greatest bigfoot expert on Earth and I bow to your superior knowledge. But you still haven't answered the question (except with more questions) of why Patti's diaper doesn't move.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Tell me what you saw on the moose's ass.
Look in a mirror, you'll get the picture.

Close. My belly clearly illustrates what a moose's ass looks like after it is consumed by a human.

What I'm asking is what it looks like after stripping away the hide.

I don't expect an answer, because I don't think anybody here has ever seen it.

Of course, there are plenty who will opine on such; but knowledge?

Not here.

[SphereGuy]

Close. My belly clearly illustrates what a moose's ass looks like after it is consumed by a human.

What I'm asking is what it looks like after stripping away the hide.

I don't expect an answer, because I don't think anybody here has ever seen it.

Of course, there are plenty who will opine on such; but knowledge?

Not here.

You must live here, I edited that within a minute or two of posting. Anyway, why do play games all the time? Enlighten us. Answer the original question then answer your own question. Why is an answer from you so hard?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Close. My belly clearly illustrates what a moose's ass looks like after it is consumed by a human.

What I'm asking is what it looks like after stripping away the hide.

I don't expect an answer, because I don't think anybody here has ever seen it.

Of course, there are plenty who will opine on such; but knowledge?

Not here.
You must live here, I edited that within a minute or two of posting.

I don't live in Iowa, but it's a nice kinda place.

Anyway, why do play games all the time?

Who's playing games?

Enlighten us.

Damn! I'm trying as hard as I can!

Answer the original question then answer your own question.

No. I know why her ass looks and behaves like that, and I'll wait to see if anybody else knows, and knows why.

Then I'll answer my own question.

Why is an answer from you so hard?

Because it isn't what you want to hear.

[SphereGuy]

I don't live in Iowa, but it's a nice kinda place.



Who's playing games?



Damn! I'm trying as hard as I can!



No. I know why her ass looks and behaves like that, and I'll wait to see if anybody else knows, and knows why.

Then I'll answer my own question.



Because it isn't what you want to hear.

You're just playing games. Until you answer a question, any one of them will do, you are just playing games. This is what I know, Patti is a man in a suit and that's why her diaper doesn't move. Now tell us what you know.

Oh, you don't know. That must be it. I gave you way too much credit. You're just sitting there in your underwear laughing at all the trolling you are doing. I'm beginning to think you are Eric's other personality, the one he has when he's on medication.

[Huntster]

You're just playing games. Until you answer a question, any one of them will do, you are just playing games.

I asked first:

Tell me what is under the hide of a bear's/moose's/elk's ass in the fall.

This is what I know, Patti is a man in a suit and that's why her diaper doesn't move.

You don't know squat. You are opining.

Now tell us what you know.

As soon as you tell me what you know.

Oh, you don't know. That must be it.

Wow! Give the boy a cigar!

No, I don't know if the subject in the PGF is an animal or a man in a suit. I've opined with a percentage; 95% animal, 5% man in a suit.

I gave you way too much credit.

Your credit won't even get me a cup of cheap coffee.

Keep it to yourself.

You're just sitting there in your underwear laughing at all the trolling you are doing.

Nope. Sometimes I'm here in my briefs, but not now. I'm in a pair of cheap jeans and cheap longsleeved cotton pullover.

I'm beginning to think you are Eric's other personality, the one he has when he's on medication.

Wrong on all counts. Beckjord is an idiot, he needs meds, and I'm not either.

[SphereGuy]

I asked first:

Tell me what is under the hide of a bear's/moose's/elk's ass in the fall.

Um, no, re-read this thread. I asked you first, what does a moose have to do with patties diaper? You answered the question with a question and so on and so on, trying to prove you are important or something. Here, you'll enjoy this:

http://www.starthinker.com/images/troll.jpg

It's late and I'm tired. I see you will never answer a question, you never do, so there's no point in continuing this.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I asked first:

Tell me what is under the hide of a bear's/moose's/elk's ass in the fall.

Um, no, re-read this thread. I asked you first, what does a moose have to do with patties diaper?

Since I was the guy who mentioned moose, you lose. I asked first.

You answered the question with a question and so on and so on, trying to prove you are important or something.

I want to read something from you. I'm not reading it yet.

Here, you'll enjoy this:

You're right; I enjoyed it immensely.

It's late and I'm tired. I see you will never answer a question, you never do, so there's no point in continuing this.

Stay tuned.

If anyone on this forum wants to talk about the ass of an animal walking on a sandbar, they'd better be prepared to talk from a position of knowledge, not opinion or pure BS.

I asked a pertinent question. I've received no answer yet.

I'll wait.

So will you, because you obviously don't have the answer. You didn't even try to present one.

[bjb]

I see you will never answer a question, you never do, so there's no point in continuing this.

Some time ago, I realized Hunster was a troll when bragged about coming here and annoying the skeptics. That's when I put him on ignore. It's interesting how quickly you came to the same conclusion. You'll find these threads make just as much sense without his posts.

By the way, thanks for the stabilized .gif of the film. I hadn't noticed the 'diaper' effect before but now it is very obvious. I can't understand how anyone can continue to believe in this film, but the self-deluded are always with us.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Starthinker
I see you will never answer a question, you never do, so there's no point in continuing this.
Some time ago, I realized Hunster was a troll when bragged about coming here and annoying the skeptics. That's when I put him on ignore. It's interesting how quickly you came to the same conclusion. You'll find these threads make just as much sense without his posts.

Tjjj sithe. eoeen. ofhje re. otehj.

[RayG]

Tell me what you saw when you dressed the moose's ass.

Tell me what you saw on the moose's ass.


Guess I'm extra thick this morning, I simply don't see the connection. Unless you've dressed a squatch's ass, how can you make a comparison? How can you be sure the bipedal ass of the squatch is going to match the quaduped ass of the elk/moose/bear?

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Tell me what you saw when you dressed the moose's ass.

Tell me what you saw on the moose's ass.
Guess I'm extra thick this morning, I simply don't see the connection.

Think about it.

What is common on the asses of large mammals in North America in the fall?

I even highlighted a clue in your own words.

Unless you've dressed a squatch's ass, how can you make a comparison?

Because it's a constant among all the large mammals I've seen; at least among omnivores and ungulates, as well as in predators (to a lessor extent).

How can you be sure the bipedal ass of the squatch is going to match the quaduped ass of the elk/moose/bear?

Climate and feed, just like other temperate mammals, especially omnivores.

Ray, of all folks, I'd figure you'd be on this like a ton of bricks.

BTW, it's the wee hours here. You're ready for eggs and ham, aren't you?

[SphereGuy]

Some time ago, I realized Hunster was a troll when bragged about coming here and annoying the skeptics. That's when I put him on ignore. It's interesting how quickly you came to the same conclusion. You'll find these threads make just as much sense without his posts.

By the way, thanks for the stabilized .gif of the film. I hadn't noticed the 'diaper' effect before but now it is very obvious. I can't understand how anyone can continue to believe in this film, but the self-deluded are always with us.

The really funny part is when I first read this thread I thought, wouldn't it set hunstie off if I brought up the whole dfoot fakery thing? If you look at the post you can see I was really careful to not show support or non-support, I just wanted to bring it up to see what he would read into it. Then I foolishly accepted the challenge (I make little challenges to myself all the time) to get him to answer a question. Then I started playing an online game and lost interest.

I have to confess I sort of used to think there could maybe, there's an outside chance, that there could be a bigfoot based on two things. First, a close beloved relative came face to face with one, so he claims. Not an I-saw-it across-the-field-and-creek sort of sighting but a nose-to-nose, just-inches-away encounter and it shook him up so bad that since that time he never went west of the Mississippi right up to the day he died. And I'm talking about a truck driver who had been in all 48 states and bragged that he could deliver a load anywhere. He was shook up for a few weeks after that and it was years before he ever told anyone what shook him up. We all used to think he was shot at or beat up or something. I know the evidence is nill and the chances are slim to nothing that bigfoot exists but it's hard to discount a story like this from someone you trust.

Second, moose are huge. Unbelievably huge. An outdoorsy type once told me "it's hard to believe that a moose can be born, live, and die without a human every laying eyes on it." I have no idea if that's true or not but I can imagine that it is. It just made me consider that a huge beast can remain hidden it's whole life.

BUT, a breeding population is a whole 'nother ballgame. That's why I don't really commit to the idea. Something would have been found by now, and nothing has. And don't show me a thousand foot prints, show me the foot. For the longest time I was in that rare class of bigfoot believers that thought the PG film looked fake from the first time I saw it. Now I'm just looking at the fence wondering why I was sitting on it in the first place.

So, I do pick on the believers every once in a while. I do have my hoax all scripted out and just need to convince someone to help me a little, plus I'm looking for the perfect item I need, I'm not satisfied with what I have (no, it's not fur) plus it's hard to find an Iowa forest that looks like the Pacific Northwest so I may wait until I travel again to pull it off. Watching what believers say about films like the PG film just give me the ammo I need to pull it off. Oh well, someday, when they are least expecting it...

(Part of my hoax is being able to point out that I blabbed that it was coming, so I don't mind bringing it up here from time to time.)

[SphereGuy]

Double posted somehow.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by bjb
Some time ago, I realized Hunster was a troll when bragged about coming here and annoying the skeptics. That's when I put him on ignore. It's interesting how quickly you came to the same conclusion. You'll find these threads make just as much sense without his posts.

The really funny part is when I first read this thread I thought, wouldn't it set hunstie off if I brought up the whole dfoot fakery thing?

So, you admit trolling for trouble with the Huntster; the one accused of being the troll.

Thanks for the confession of hypocrisy.

If you look at the post you can see I was really careful to not show support or non-support, I just wanted to bring it up to see what he would read into it. Then I foolishly accepted the challenge (I make little challenges to myself all the time) to get him to answer a question. Then I started playing an online game and lost interest.

Good job. I'm impressed.

Second, moose are huge. Unbelievably huge. An outdoorsy type once told me "it's hard to believe that a moose can be born, live, and die without a human every laying eyes on it." I have no idea if that's true or not but I can imagine that it is. It just made me consider that a huge beast can remain hidden it's whole life.

Do you like evidence with your thoughts?: (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bbd5956e-fdc1-49fa-bdb6-3cdaf78d70a6)

It's New Zealand's version of the sasquatch, a mythical beast thought by a credulous few to be roaming the deepest, darkest woods of the South Pacific nation -- and by everyone else to be a joke.

Most New Zealanders laugh at claims that Canadian moose have somehow survived in the south island wilderness since the 1910 introduction of 10 antlered immigrants from Saskatchewan. Purported sightings of the gangly ungulate are widely viewed as hoaxes inhabiting the same eco-illogical niche as the Loch Ness monster, Ogopogo and abominable snowman.

But a tuft of hair discovered by biologist Ken Tustin -- a researcher in the remote Fiordland National Park and a long-time believer in the legend -- has tested positive for moose genes at a Canadian DNA lab.

Yeah, that's right. Moose. A breeding population. Animals weighing over half a ton. Shedding antlers every year. In a corner of an island, the whole island no bigger than West Virginia, or the borough I live in here in Alaska. In a national park. For a century.

Let's see if you folks can get the clue here...................

BUT, a breeding population is a whole 'nother ballgame. That's why I don't really commit to the idea. Something would have been found by now, and nothing has.

Plenty has been found, just like the shed moose antlers that have been repeatedly found on South Island. You just reject it.

And don't show me a thousand foot prints, show me the foot.

See? You don't want evidence. You want proof. Like a child kicking and screaming on the floor because mommy didn't give him the candy bar he wanted, but gave him the candy bar she had.

Pathetic. Really, it is.

For the longest time I was in that rare class of bigfoot believers that thought the PG film looked fake from the first time I saw it. Now I'm just looking at the fence wondering why I was sitting on it in the first place.

Because that's where you belong.

When proof finally becomes available, you'll get off the fence with great bravado and pomp. You'll then suddenly be filled with knowledge and wisdom, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

So, I do pick on the believers every once in a while.

Now comes the self-puffing.

Oh, ouch! Such powerful blows you deliver.

Geezzz.................

I do have my hoax all scripted out and just need to convince someone to help me a little, plus I'm looking for the perfect item I need, I'm not satisfied with what I have (no, it's not fur) plus it's hard to find an Iowa forest that looks like the Pacific Northwest so I may wait until I travel again to pull it off.

Hey, try it here. In fact, try it in my yard. Try it anywhere around here.

This place literally bristles with guns, and serving on a grand jury even now, I doubt we'd indict a neighbor for shooting some damned fool who was running around outside in a fur suit trying to fool somebody.

But, hell. You won't come here. You haven't even got the balls to deal with the temperatures outside about now.

Watching what believers say about films like the PG film just give me the ammo I need to pull it off.

Again, come on up. We'll give you lots of "ammo."

(Part of my hoax is being able to point out that I blabbed that it was coming, so I don't mind bringing it up here from time to time.)

You, Dfoot, and Penn & Teller.

What a bunch of damned fools.

[RayG]

Think about it.

What is common on the asses of large mammals in North America in the fall?

I even highlighted a clue in your own words.

No, I get what you're driving at, but I fail to see how we can compare known animals to unknown ones. We can speculate, or assume things about it, but until someone has actually skinned a squatch ass, we can't be certain.

Climate and feed, just like other temperate mammals, especially omnivores.Not knowing the diet, behavior, habits, or anything else about Mr. Squatch, I'll not be making any claims about what his ass looks like, is shaped like, or how much fat content it has.

Ray, of all folks, I'd figure you'd be on this like a ton of bricks.I am. That's why I'm asking about it. I'll be damned if I can figure out how either skeptics or advocates can be so informed about something that has yet to be classified/catalogued or 'discovered'.

BTW, it's the wee hours here. You're ready for eggs and ham, aren't you?Speaking of which... I haven't had any eggs since last December, when I had to visit two different emergency rooms for pain relief. It took me about four days to recover, and I've been very careful not to consume any more eggs. Yesterday though, my daughter and I went to a diner for lunch and stupidly I decided to have a Western omlette. Afterwards at work, I began to regret my decision, as twinges of pain stabbed at my right-lower abdomen. That was followed shortly afterwards by immense itching in the same area.

I learned my lesson. Eggs are off the menu forever. :(

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Think about it.

What is common on the asses of large mammals in North America in the fall?

I even highlighted a clue in your own words.

No, I get what you're driving at, but I fail to see how we can compare known animals to unknown ones. We can speculate, or assume things about it, but until someone has actually skinned a squatch ass, we can't be certain.

Okay. If that's the foundation than we can similarly say that we cannot speculate or assume things about Patty's ass until it, too, has been skinned.

It's a two-way street.

Quote:
Climate and feed, just like other temperate mammals, especially omnivores.

Not knowing the diet, behavior, habits, or anything else about Mr. Squatch, I'll not be making any claims about what his ass looks like, is shaped like, or how much fat content it has.

Not knowing Patty's diet, behavior, habits, or anything else, we cannot be making any claims about why her ass is that shape and consistency, or how much fat content or padding it has.

Quote:
Ray, of all folks, I'd figure you'd be on this like a ton of bricks.

I am. That's why I'm asking about it. I'll be damned if I can figure out how either skeptics or advocates can be so informed about something that has yet to be classified/catalogued or 'discovered'.

And I'll be damned if I can figure out how skeptics can be so definative that the PG film is a hoax when it hasn't been proven to be such, despite some 39 years of analysis.

Quote:
BTW, it's the wee hours here. You're ready for eggs and ham, aren't you?

Speaking of which... I haven't had any eggs since last December, when I had to visit two different emergency rooms for pain relief. It took me about four days to recover, and I've been very careful not to consume any more eggs.

Oh, oh.........That doesn't sound like a simple high cholesterol level.

Sorry about that. I love eggs. I have an egg sandwich just about every morning. Funny thing is I still don't have my own layer chickens. We have ducks in the yard, but we keep them just to keep the slugs down in the lawn in the summer. I need a chicken coop and a couple of layers.

[The Atheist]

Aggressive and insulting?? Hey....listen buddy.... I resemble that remark.

...and I make absolutely no apologies for my style either. Fight fire with fire I always say.Bigfoot Nation(Fudster,LAL..etc etc) comes across as snide and holier than thou to me,they act as if theyre in on some super secret discovery that only they are smart enough to understand and we the lowly skeptics of earth are somehow too ignorant to see what they see.

To me all is fair.....I chose my handle "Mad Hom" as sort of a subtle hint at what one could expect from me. I find very little wrong with a few Ad Hominem attacks once and awhile...you know for entertainment sakes..although I don't believe I've ever said..

You're stupid because you believe in Bigfeetsus....or...If you weren't so dumb you'd understand it's a hoax.

Sometimes I am to aggressive...but what can I say....the logic these people use sometimes astounds me...and I can't help but let fly with some insults...my apologies....also most of my messageboard experience is from Sports forums and stuff where insults and digs are the rule of the day...I'll work on it.Don't work too hard on it, mate, a good ad hominem's like a good wine, it just gets better with age.

Only just came across this thread, great stuff!

[The Atheist]

Yeah, that's right. Moose. A breeding population. Animals weighing over half a ton. Shedding antlers every year. In a corner of an island, the whole island no bigger than West Virginia, or the borough I live in here in Alaska. In a national park. For a century.Well, over twice as big as West Virginia, actually. WV = 62809 km^2, South Island = 151215 km^2.

Mate, I'm a little surprised to see you in this debate - on that side anyway.

Glad you mentioned the South Island, because not only are moose hiding there somewhere, there is a body of people - and a lot of sketchy evidence - that moas (enormous, flightless birds, extinct since 1600-ish) still run around in the bush. Also, the National Park is a bit of a red herring - the untouched forests and mountain ranges of the South Island's west coast stretch for hundreds of kilometres.

Ok. The big difference, of course, is that we know what those animals are and how they got there - if they are there.

Bigfoot/sasquatch doesn't have that luxury.

Aside from the film, which I think is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen to film a make-believe beast, have you seen any other evidence that such a beast ever existed, let alone ran around as recently as the past half-century?

Let's see if you folks can get the clue here...................

Plenty has been found, just like the shed moose antlers that have been repeatedly found on South Island. You just reject it. As above, what's yours? Plus, all the evidence in the world, including a brace of dead meese (that's plural of moose, right?) aren't going to help the case for bigfoot - unless you want to claim they're related to moose?See? You don't want evidence. You want proof. Like a child kicking and screaming on the floor because mommy didn't give him the candy bar he wanted, but gave him the candy bar she had.

Pathetic. Really, it is.Mate, you know me, I'm not one to cry about "evidence" - I accept what my eyes tell me. (Well, before 10 pm, anyway)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yeah, that's right. Moose. A breeding population. Animals weighing over half a ton. Shedding antlers every year. In a corner of an island, the whole island no bigger than West Virginia, or the borough I live in here in Alaska. In a national park. For a century.

Well, over twice as big as West Virginia, actually. WV = 62809 km^2, South Island = 151215 km^2.

Whoops! I used the population number instead of the sq.mi. number!:blush:

Mate, I'm a little surprised to see you in this debate - on that side anyway.

Like Gomer Pyle used to say: "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Glad you mentioned the South Island, because not only are moose hiding there somewhere, there is a body of people - and a lot of sketchy evidence - that moas (enormous, flightless birds, extinct since 1600-ish) still run around in the bush. Also, the National Park is a bit of a red herring - the untouched forests and mountain ranges of the South Island's west coast stretch for hundreds of kilometres.

I don't doubt you. I can appreciate wildernesses.

Ok. The big difference, of course, is that we know what those animals are and how they got there - if they are there.

Bigfoot/sasquatch doesn't have that luxury.

Correct. But we know large apes have existed in China historically. We just don't know if they still exist, ever existed in the North American PNW, or were bipedal. However, we do have lots of reported testimony, a strong historical reference from aboriginal peoples, footprints, and the PG film.

Aside from the film, which I think is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen to film a make-believe beast, have you seen any other evidence that such a beast ever existed, let alone ran around as recently as the past half-century?

Yes. Personally. In 1972 I saw a trackway that included a few excellent prints.

I've also read of footprint evidence that is just as compelling. I also believe that all of the reported testimony is not wrong, mistaken, or hoaxed. If only 0.5 percent are true, the creatures still exist.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Let's see if you folks can get the clue here...................

Plenty has been found, just like the shed moose antlers that have been repeatedly found on South Island. You just reject it.

As above, what's yours?

* The Bossburg tracks
* The Blue Mountain tracks
* The PG film, with associated trackway including casted prints, independent witnesses (Laverty, Titmus)
* The 1982 Gray's Harbor tracks
* The reported testimony from cops I find significant, like this one (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/graysharbor.htm)

...meese (that's plural of moose, right?)....

I've heard some folks up here refer to them as "mooses", but I don't do that myself.

Originally Posted by Huntster
See? You don't want evidence. You want proof. Like a child kicking and screaming on the floor because mommy didn't give him the candy bar he wanted, but gave him the candy bar she had.

Pathetic. Really, it is.

Mate, you know me, I'm not one to cry about "evidence" - I accept what my eyes tell me.

Me, too. But I can't supply you with what my eyes beheld.

That post was specifically meant for Starthinker. You're definately a different critter than him/her.

[The Atheist]

Whoops! I used the population number instead of the sq.mi. number!:blush:I'm just one of those blokes who's obsessed by size!
Correct. But we know large apes have existed in China historically. We just don't know if they still exist, ever existed in the North American PNW, or were bipedal. However, we do have lots of reported testimony, a strong historical reference from aboriginal peoples, footprints, and the PG film.Yeah, look, this is a subject which, to me, has just been filed in the BS drawer, along with Yeti, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. I see that it's actually quite a big deal up your way and there is some excellent stuff around on the subject. This seems to be a totally balanced and sensible one. (http://www.sasquatchonline.com/content/view/84/29/1/2/)
Yes. Personally. In 1972 I saw a trackway that included a few excellent prints.

I've also read of footprint evidence that is just as compelling. I also believe that all of the reported testimony is not wrong, mistaken, or hoaxed. If only 0.5 percent are true, the creatures still exist.

* The Bossburg tracks
* The Blue Mountain tracks
* The PG film, with associated trackway including casted prints, independent witnesses (Laverty, Titmus)
* The 1982 Gray's Harbor tracks
* The reported testimony from cops I find significant, like this one (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/graysharbor.htm)

Me, too. But I can't supply you with what my eyes beheld.Ok.

The evidence consists of:

Footprints.

These seem to have been found all over the place, including some you've seen yourself. The flip side of that is that footprints are just footprints and until we find the foot which made them, be it hoax, real or a deformity, we can't say one way or the other. It would bother me though, that many of the tracks found, including two you mention - Bossburg and Blue Mountains - are well-used tracks, yet while footprints have been found, no sasquatches have been seen. To me, the footprints are too much akin to crop circles. And look at what's happened with crop circles - even though we know, with 100% certainty, how, when and why people made those crop circles, some people still think aliens do it.

Eyewitness accounts.

If you were to tell me that you had seen one of these critters with your own eyes, I'd believe you. There are lots of people I wouldn't believe, simply because I have personally witnessed a number of events during my life which other people have also seen, yet have completely different memories of what happened. Lots of people have seen UFOs, too. I don't believe any of them, either.

The article I've linked to covers that, and also quite rightly points out that there are only two options here and they aren't bigfoot/no bigfoot. They are bigfoot/hoax.

There's certainly enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is evidence of something. Either - exactly as with crop circles - some people around USA/Canada are deliberately adding fuel by creating footprints (and this does happen - we've had several plots exposed of attempted moa-discoverers), or there's a lonely girl out there somewhere. Sounds like you should get me to Alaska - I think I could be the type of bloke a 700lb, hairy, 7 foot, VERY lonely female might like to carry home for supper.

Where do you stand on Yeti/Loch Ness Monster? They seem to have a similar amount of evidence in favour of their existence.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct. But we know large apes have existed in China historically. We just don't know if they still exist, ever existed in the North American PNW, or were bipedal. However, we do have lots of reported testimony, a strong historical reference from aboriginal peoples, footprints, and the PG film.

Yeah, look, this is a subject which, to me, has just been filed in the BS drawer, along with Yeti, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. I see that it's actually quite a big deal up your way and there is some excellent stuff around on the subject. This seems to be a totally balanced and sensible one.

Crowley has done some good work. He posts here as "tube". While he has actually done something to learn and show (which is a whole lot more than I or many have done), I have asked some questions which I don't feel he (or anyone else) have answered to my satisfaction regarding footprints.

The PG event included all key elements. There were footprints at the scene of the filmed subject, there is the film (in which today we can even see the soles of the subject's feet), there were completely independent witnesses who went to the site the following day and photographed the footprints (Lyle Laverty), and there was another witness (a sasquatch report investigator, Bob Titmus) who visited the site several days later and saw the footprints.

The evidence consists of:

Footprints.

These seem to have been found all over the place, including some you've seen yourself. The flip side of that is that footprints are just footprints and until we find the foot which made them, be it hoax, real or a deformity, we can't say one way or the other. It would bother me though, that many of the tracks found, including two you mention - Bossburg and Blue Mountains - are well-used tracks, yet while footprints have been found, no sasquatches have been seen.

The footprints are evidence, they are not proof. A foot would be (should be) proof.

To me, the footprints are too much akin to crop circles. And look at what's happened with crop circles - even though we know, with 100% certainty, how, when and why people made those crop circles, some people still think aliens do it.

Crop circles never rang my bell. I personally don't know anyone who believes they are made by aliens.

Do you?

Eyewitness accounts.

If you were to tell me that you had seen one of these critters with your own eyes, I'd believe you. There are lots of people I wouldn't believe, simply because I have personally witnessed a number of events during my life which other people have also seen, yet have completely different memories of what happened. Lots of people have seen UFOs, too. I don't believe any of them, either.

The article I've linked to covers that, and also quite rightly points out that there are only two options here and they aren't bigfoot/no bigfoot. They are bigfoot/hoax.

Nope. There is another possibility that can explain some sightings:

1) Bigfeet exist and are occasionally seen
2) Some reports are of mistaken identities; bears, people in dark clothing, etc.
3) People put on suits and hoax others

There's certainly enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is evidence of something.

Exactly. Certainly enough to justify some attempt to discover the truth.

Sounds like you should get me to Alaska - I think I could be the type of bloke a 700lb, hairy, 7 foot, VERY lonely female might like to carry home for supper.

While there is lots of evidence of sasquatchery in Southeast and even Gulf Coast areas, there is very little evidence around my neck of the woods. It's a different environment than coastal Alaska.

Where do you stand on Yeti/Loch Ness Monster? They seem to have a similar amount of evidence in favour of their existence.

I think yetis are a strong possibility, for the same reasons that I think sasquatches are a strong possibility. The Loch Ness Monster (and other lake monsters) I find doubtful. A lake is just too restrictive an environment for such a large creature to evade discovery.

[The Atheist]

Crowley has done some good work. He posts here as "tube". While he has actually done something to learn and show (which is a whole lot more than I or many have done), I have asked some questions which I don't feel he (or anyone else) have answered to my satisfaction regarding footprints.

The PG event included all key elements. There were footprints at the scene of the filmed subject, there is the film (in which today we can even see the soles of the subject's feet), there were completely independent witnesses who went to the site the following day and photographed the footprints (Lyle Laverty), and there was another witness (a sasquatch report investigator, Bob Titmus) who visited the site several days later and saw the footprints.Ok. I just think the film looks far too much like a human dressed in a suit to consider it seriously. I gave the film the seven-year-old test by asking my daughter (7) what it was in the film. She said immediately, "it's a man dressed in a monkey suit". That walk bothers me. Not saying it couldn't be non-human, but it sure looks human.
The footprints are evidence, they are not proof. A foot would be (should be) proof. Yep, find one of them! Preferably still attached to the rest of it.Crop circles never rang my bell. I personally don't know anyone who believes they are made by aliens.

Do you?Unfortunately, yes. I know a couple of women wo used to work for me who were true believers. Even after I showed them videos of crop circles being made, they still chose to believe that silly humans are just copying what aliens started.Nope. There is another possibility that can explain some sightings:

1) Bigfeet exist and are occasionally seen
2) Some reports are of mistaken identities; bears, people in dark clothing, etc.
3) People put on suits and hoax othersYep, that's exactly as I see it, although I think the "mistaken" column can be forgotten as the footprints mean there either is a bigfoot or someone's trying to make it appear so.Exactly. Certainly enough to justify some attempt to discover the truth.

While there is lots of evidence of sasquatchery in Southeast and even Gulf Coast areas, there is very little evidence around my neck of the woods. It's a different environment than coastal Alaska.Well, get to the coast and shoot one! (preferably with a tranquiliser)
I think yetis are a strong possibility, for the same reasons that I think sasquatches are a strong possibility. The Loch Ness Monster (and other lake monsters) I find doubtful. A lake is just too restrictive an environment for such a large creature to evade discovery.Lucky!

"Nessie" is an unquestionable fraud. My mother actually lived there for a time in the 1920s and '30s and people the locals were all "in on it". It's a great setting for a monster story, though - weird currents move through the lake leaving what looks like a wake, very well thought-out fraud.

Yeti seem very similar to sasquatches - they "live" in remote, uninhabitable areas, with extremely harsh climates, where enormous tracts of impenetrable land provide unlimited hiding places. Both are best-known by their footprints.

[Skeptical Greg]

..... I know a couple of women wo used to work for me who were true believers. Even after I showed them videos of crop circles being made, they still chose to believe that silly humans are just copying what aliens started.............


Have you seeen this ?

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/crack2.gif

Bigfootologists claim the maker of these feet, modeled them after the print from which the cast you see was made ..

Right down to the crack in the heel ..
The Bigfoot who made the print had a scar... Uhhh Huh .. We all believe that ..

[The Atheist]

Have you seeen this ?No, I hadn't, thanks. I've had very little interest in the subject - I see you're prominent in a recently-bumped thread on the subject. Don't think I'll read all 160 pages of it, though!

Looks more and more like the crop circle phenomenon.

[Huntster]

Have you seeen this ?

Yup. I've seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen it.

Bigfootologists claim the maker of these feet, modeled them after the print from which the cast you see was made ..

Which "Bigfootologist" was that?

[RayG]

Bigfootologists claim the maker of these feet, modeled them after the print from which the cast you see was made ..Which "Bigfootologist" was that?

Would that be LAL? (She's just as qualified as anyone else.)

What makes you think whoever carved those klutzy feet (in one experiment, the straps broke) didn't copy from a cast or photo of an actual track? -- 'Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges' thread, post #135 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1166362&postcount=135)

Whoever carved the track was apparently copying a Titmus cast or a photo of an actual track showing a "double ball". -- 'Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges' thread, post #141 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1166655&postcount=141)

RayG

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Diogenese
Bigfootologists claim the maker of these feet, modeled them after the print from which the cast you see was made ..
Originally Posted by Huntster
Which "Bigfootologist" was that?


Would that be LAL? (She's just as qualified as anyone else.)


Originally Posted by LAL
What makes you think whoever carved those klutzy feet (in one experiment, the straps broke) didn't copy from a cast or photo of an actual track? -- 'Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges' thread, post #135

Originally Posted by LAL
Whoever carved the track was apparently copying a Titmus cast or a photo of an actual track showing a "double ball". -- 'Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges' thread, post #141

Then I would say that LAL is wrong on that account.

There is no doubt Wallace made "bigfoot sandals" and made some tracks that were seen by some as authentic.

There is also no doubt that Wallace did not make all the tracks that have been found.

[The Atheist]

Has there ever been a reasonably serious attempt to find/debunk the bigfoot?

Loch Ness has been well covered by seemingly scientific analysis, how about the girl?

[Huntster]

Has there ever been a reasonably serious attempt to find/debunk the bigfoot?

Depends on the meaning of the words "reasonably serious."

In my opinion, not many. What we have now are a gaggle of independent "posse" like folks, with a very few serious and capable people out in the woods looking around. They almost never find anything. Most of the most credible evidence comes from Joe Blow calling or otherwise notifying sasquatach researchers of footprint finds, and by the time the researcher gets there, the creature is long gone.

Some of the best eyewitness testimony IMO has come from cops. The Gray's Harbor trackway involved sheriff's deputies.

[Mad Hom]

Has there ever been a reasonably serious attempt to find/debunk the bigfoot?

Loch Ness has been well covered by seemingly scientific analysis, how about the girl?

See the thing is...Bigfeet or Bigfeet like creatures have been seen all over every continent (except Antarctica) on Earth. If there is a thick stand of trees...there's probably a few Bigfeet sightings in that area.

The whole world is a huge area to try and cover for scientific analysis...there in lies the appeal for Bigfoot Fan. This mystery has legs. Until every stand of thick forest is dropped we will always have a Bigfeet Phenomenon...and than even when the last tree falls...Bigfoot nation will exclaim..how sad it is that they must have gone extinct before we could prove they existed.

It's 100% airtight Woo..the opitome of can't prove a negative..there is no way to change a Tru-Blu Bigfeet Bleever's mind no matter how logical you think the argument is.

[Huntster]

See the thing is...Bigfeet or Bigfeet like creatures have been seen all over every continent (except Antarctica) on Earth. If there is a thick stand of trees...there's probably a few Bigfeet sightings in that area......

Yup. A few.

And other specific areas (The PNW coast from N. California to Yakutat in Southeast Alaska), have a very high number of such sightings.

Glickman addressed this evidence. (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasirpt.pdf)

So, instead of analysing the evidence, people like Mad Horn prefer to cast doubt on all of it. Because there are reported sightings on Long Island in New York, the entire phenomenon is false.

Of course, that's not the evaluation of evidence. It's ignoring evidence.

[Mad Hom]

Yup. A few.

And other specific areas (The PNW coast from N. California to Yakutat in Southeast Alaska), have a very high number of such sightings.

Glickman addressed this evidence. (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasirpt.pdf)

So, instead of analysing the evidence, people like Mad Horn prefer to cast doubt on all of it. Because there are reported sightings on Long Island in New York, the entire phenomenon is false.

Of course, that's not the evaluation of evidence. It's ignoring evidence.

Fudd,would you not admit that Bigfeet sightings in Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio among other places are problematic to your cause?

If Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size sightings were restricted to the PNW than you and I would be having an entirely different debate. They're not of course so unfortunately you have to deal with an Eastern Bigfeet as well as your beloved PNW variety.

Eastern Bigfeet don't have the luxury of living in the deepest,darkest reaches of the coastal rainforest or whatever is you continue to yammer on about...so shoehorn Eastern Bigfeet into your worldview for us would ya?

My evaluation of the Bigfeetsus evidence is...that it's all second rate at best. Every important piece of evidence you have is weighed down with hoaxer involvement and inconlusiveness.

It has been proven that humans can duplicate compliant gaits,can fake mid-tarsal breaks and can emulate dermal ridges...so what is it again that you think you have Fuddster?

Bring forth some decent evidence already and I'll evaluate it ok.

Addendum: Stay tuned for the response to this post where Fuddster will attack me instead of my argument,he'll say that I'm not qualified to evaulate anything and than probably call me a name or two.

[Skeptical Greg]

Yup. I've seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen it.



Which "Bigfootologist" was that? That would be Dr. Jeff ..


" Sasquatch: Legend meets Science "
Page 61

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. I've seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen it.

Which "Bigfootologist" was that?

That would be Dr. Jeff ..


" Sasquatch: Legend meets Science "
Page 61

Haven't read it.

I repeat:

There is no doubt Wallace made "bigfoot sandals" and made some tracks that were seen by some as authentic.

There is also no doubt that Wallace did not make all the tracks that have been found.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. A few.

And other specific areas (The PNW coast from N. California to Yakutat in Southeast Alaska), have a very high number of such sightings.

Glickman addressed this evidence.

So, instead of analysing the evidence, people like Mad Horn prefer to cast doubt on all of it. Because there are reported sightings on Long Island in New York, the entire phenomenon is false.

Of course, that's not the evaluation of evidence. It's ignoring evidence.

Fudd,would you not admit that Bigfeet sightings in Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio among other places are problematic to your cause?

That's correct. I would not.

If Hairy Bipeds of Unusual Size sightings were restricted to the PNW than you and I would be having an entirely different debate.

I doubt that. Call me a skeptic.

They're not of course so unfortunately you have to deal with an Eastern Bigfeet as well as your beloved PNW variety.

No, I don't. I don't even have the time/resources to deal with the Alaskan variety.

Eastern Bigfeet don't have the luxury of living in the deepest,darkest reaches of the coastal rainforest or whatever is you continue to yammer on about...so shoehorn Eastern Bigfeet into your worldview for us would ya?

If you spent just a bit of time looking into the phenomenon instead of poking lame BS at it, you might end up with enough knowledge to actually debate from a reasonable position. For example, this thread (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3382&hl=precipitation) might offer you a bit to chew on:

In Sasquatch: Apes Among Us, John Green mentions a link between precipitation and sasquatch. Basically, sasquatch sightings didn't occur when average annual precip fell below 20 inches. He implied that the relationship was categorical rather than continuous, meaning that the relationship was not linear.

Has anyone else done any more work on this concept?

Here's why I ask.... in working on the black bear project, I've also looked at the precipitation maps for various states. Precipitation levels overlap with both black bear habitat and sasquatch sightings.

Here's California's map of annual precipitation. Notice the distribution levels over the state. It's a good match to the other maps (see black bear maps in the correlating black bears thread in independent research)

California precipitation map

Also notice that the heaviest precip in CA is in Del Norte County, which happens to have the highest number of BFRO sightings per capita in the entire state. Black bear populations are also more dense in the northern Cascade part of the state.

Here's Oklahoma precip:

Oklahoma precipitation map

The precipitation is heavier in the eastern part of the state. That's also where the most BFRO sightings are and where the black bears are. And that concentration of high precip in southeast OK? That's smack dab in Honobia country.

In Colorado, most BFRO sightings occur in the central third of the state with some spill over into the western part. Sightings are almost non-existent in east CO.

Here's a Colorado precip map:

Colorado precip map

This looks worth exploring to me along with the black bear material. Precip might be an indicator of richness of food sources, water availability, and density of cover. If the relationship was linear (who knows at this point), then that would mean more rain = more sas.

So, has anybody looked at this more in depth since Green?

My evaluation of the Bigfeetsus evidence is...that it's all second rate at best. Every important piece of evidence you have is weighed down with hoaxer involvement and inconlusiveness.

Just the above citation proves you wrong. John Green's database was collected over decades, and it clearly shows areas with higher sighting frequencies than others. That that sighting frequency correlates so closely to both precipitation levels as well as black bear density is evidence, and I don't see how you can stain it with "hoax."

It has been proven that humans can duplicate compliant gaits,can fake mid-tarsal breaks and can emulate dermal ridges...so what is it again that you think you have Fuddster?

The same things I had before you typed out your silly post.

Bring forth some decent evidence already and I'll evaluate it ok.

I wouldn't bring you evidence of anything even if I had it, because you don't matter.

Addendum: Stay tuned for the response to this post where Fuddster will attack me instead of my argument,he'll say that I'm not qualified to evaulate anything and than probably call me a name or two.

Close. No need to call you names, though. Your own forum name is appropriate.

[Mad Hom]

Just the above citation proves you wrong. John Green's database was collected over decades, and it clearly shows areas with higher sighting frequencies than others. That that sighting frequency correlates so closely to both precipitation levels as well as black bear density is evidence, and I don't see how you can stain it with "hoax."

Ok fine more rain usually means...more trees. More trees means more places for you people to claim Bigfoot is hiding...thereby making him so hard to find.

Obviously.....you people need your pet delusion to be in a remote hard to penetrate areas...sure the woods...makes sense. I wouldn't expect Bigfoot fan as ridiculously prone to flights of fantasy as you are...to try and pass off a desert Bigfeet ...or a plains Bigfeet..as real...even Bigfoot Fan isn't that pathetic.

Fudd, that database proves.........absolutely bupkis!!!

If you spent just a bit of time looking into the phenomenon instead of poking lame BS at it, you might end up with enough knowledge to actually debate from a reasonable position. For example, this thread might offer you a bit to chew on:

Fudd......you are looking up info provided by fellow Bigfoot Apologists of yours. What they have to say........is unimportant...it's preaching to the choir Fudd.

I am not in this choir....so what they say......doesn't matter to me at all.What matters to me is the fact that everything that you and the rest of Bigfoot Nation has....is useless in terms of evidence. It has been tainted by hoaxer involvement or is inconclusive to the point of irrelavence.

You have the PGF which could have been faked,thousands of footprints ....that could have been faked, Howls in the deep dark night...that could have been faked......and reams of spooky stories.......that could have been lied about.

You have nothing Fuddster.........nothing at all....so tell me again who's the one who lacks anything reasonable to say?


I wouldn't bring you evidence of anything even if I had it, because you don't matter.

Oh Fudley your words cut me..........they cut me deep!


Close. No need to call you names, though. Your own forum name is appropriate.

As is yours.........Fudd!

[Huntster]

Obviously.....you people need your pet delusion to be in a remote hard to penetrate areas...

Actually, that's where we need...................you.

I am not in this choir....so what they say......doesn't matter to me at all.What matters to me is the fact that everything that you and the rest of Bigfoot Nation has....is useless in terms of evidence. It has been tainted by hoaxer involvement or is inconclusive to the point of irrelavence.

Interesting. You're not in the choir, so why are you singing, and in such a poor pitch?

What is your interest in this phenomenon? Are you trying to save the world from.............................what?

[Mad Hom]

Actually, that's where we need...................you.



Interesting. You're not in the choir, so why are you singing, and in such a poor pitch?

What is your interest in this phenomenon? Are you trying to save the world from.............................what?

Good question...what is my interest in Bigfeetsus? Hmmmm...lemme think about that....

Well I have an Aunt who believes in angels,ghosts,tarot cards,things happening in 3's etc and I debate with her in the same way...Why?

Wacky beliefs just don't make any sense.....and I'm bored of placating them....or being acceptant of peoples blatherings who have no basis for their beliefs other than the fact that they believe.

Besides I just love a good scrap Fudd.

[luchog]

In the bigfoot episode of "Is It Real?", Bob H. came on towards the near end. His normal walk looks just like the Bigfoot walk. Maybe the Russian guy thinks the walk is non-typical of a man but maybe it is typical for Bob H. while he's wearing a heavy bigfoot costume!

I have a very close friend who's gait is far more simian than Patty's. In fact, nearly everything about him is far more simian than Patty. And he does have remarkably big feet. Hrm...

[luchog]

Just the above citation proves you wrong. John Green's database was collected over decades, and it clearly shows areas with higher sighting frequencies than others. That that sighting frequency correlates so closely to both precipitation levels as well as black bear density is evidence, and I don't see how you can stain it with "hoax."

The obvious conclusion is just smacking you upside the head with a big ol' Clue Bat (tm), but you still seem to miss it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Just the above citation proves you wrong. John Green's database was collected over decades, and it clearly shows areas with higher sighting frequencies than others. That that sighting frequency correlates so closely to both precipitation levels as well as black bear density is evidence, and I don't see how you can stain it with "hoax."
The obvious conclusion is just smacking you upside the head with a big ol' Clue Bat (tm), but you still seem to miss it.

Not even close. Like Mad Horn, if you'd consider instead of conclude, perhaps you'd learn a few things.

Since Ethan A. Blight's "Relationships between the American Black Bear Population and the Bigfoot Phenomenon" is no longer available online (that I could find), I've cited it here. It can be read online here: (http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse_arc hive.html)

Misidentification of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) is often named as a possible source of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Bigfoot report data and American black bear population data are presented and analyzed to identify any relationship between the two.

Introduction

Bigfoot believers and disbelievers alike have always been aware that, in theory, a person might mistake certain animals for Bigfoot. One of those animals is the bear. No person can deny that such misidentification is possible. It is clear that it can happen.

The question to be addressed in this paper is this: does it happen? The majority of the so-called skeptical community believes that it does, and that misidentification of common species of bear contributes a significant portion of Bigfoot reports. However, they have produced little in the way of actual examples to support this opinion. Hence the question of bear misidentification, and the degree to which it contributes to Bigfoot reporting, has always been unresolved.

Green’s Sighting Data

Bigfoot researcher John Green claimed to have collected over 1,500 Bigfoot reports as of the 1981 printing of his book. Green’s national sighting data as of November 1977 is summarized in Table 1. [Green 1981] This data is analyzed to determine if misidentification of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) is a significant contributor to the Bigfoot phenomenon.

Methodology

Green’s data will be tested against a simplistic model of expected sighting rates for animals. The probability of receiving a report for a cataloged animal is modeled as:

Pr = Ps . Ps . Pa . Ph . Pe (Eq.1)

where,
Pr is the probability function of receiving a report,
Ps is the probability function that an observation results in a report submission,
Pa is the probability function of an animal being at a specific place and time to be observed,
Ph is the probability function of a human being in a specific place and time to make the observation, and
Pe is the probability function of an observer expecting to observe the phenomenon.

The author assumes that the probability that an observation results in a report submission is geographically uniform, so this reduces to a constant. The probability that a human in a specific place and time makes an observation is directly proportional to human population density. The probability of an animal being in a specific place and time to be observed is direction proportional to the animal’s population density. This is modeled on a per-state basis as the population divided by the number of square miles.

Analysis

Table 1 is organized on a per-state basis and is ordered in descending normalized frequency (not shown) [Glickman 1998]. The “Black Bear Population” column is the 1997 black bear population figure for the state [Burch 1997]. Where a range of possible populations was given by Burch, the mean of the data was used. “Sq. Mi.” is the number of square miles in the state. “Black Bear Pop./Sq. Mi.” is derived as “Black Bear Population” divided by “Sq. Mi.”. The “Freq.” column contains Green’s reported observation frequencies [Green 1981]. “Cluster Group” is the assigned cluster group resulting from cluster analysis [Glickman 1998]. The “Excluded” column indicates the states excluded from the analysis due to incomplete data.

Table 1: Green Sighting Data and Black Bear Population Statistics Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The bivariate correlation coefficient for Table 1 data between frequency and black bear population density is computed as a baseline prior to data clustering and is called the baseline correlation. The frequency is not well correlated to the black bear population density across the entire dataset. Hierarchal cluster analysis has previously been performed by Glickman on the normalized frequency. Cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were called Group A which consists of Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Northern California, and Idaho. The remainder of the cases was called Group B. [Glickman 1998] The same correlation as that computed for the baseline was computed for Group A and B and are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Post-Clustering Correlations of Green’s Sighting Data to Black Bear Population Statistics
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Discussion

Glickman noted that the report frequency in Group A has a high correlation to human population density. This is consistent with the model of receiving a report of an animal (Eq. 1). Glickman also noted that the report frequency in Group B has a high correlation to human population. He hypothesized that Group B may represent manufactured reports. [Glickman 1998]

If misidentification of black bears was a significant contributor to Green’s sighting data, and, by extension, to the Bigfoot phenomenon as a whole, a strong correlation between black bear population density and report frequency is expected.

If Group B represents manufactured reports only, no correlation between black bear population density and report frequency is expected.

No relationship is observed between black bear population density and frequency: the Baseline, Group A, and Group B correlations of +0.2562, +0.4139, and -0.1219, respectively, are all low.

Since no correlation was found between black bear population density and report frequency in Group B, the hypothesis that Group B represents only manufactured reports has not been contradicted.

The lack of correlation between black bear population density and report frequency in Group A is of special interest. As noted above, the correlation between human population density and report frequency in Group A is consistent with the model of receiving a report of an animal. This suggests that some animal species may be responsible for the Bigfoot phenomenon in Group A. However, the correlation between black bear population density and report frequency in Group A is low, which suggests that misidentification of black bears is not a significant contributor to the Group A phenomenon.

Conclusion

The goal of this analysis was to determine the degree to which misidentification of the American black bear contributes to the Bigfoot phenomenon. The lack of significant correlation between black bear population statistics and Green’s sighting data suggests that misidentification of black bears is responsible for only a small fraction of all Bigfoot reports.

The hypothesis that a significant portion of the Bigfoot phenomenon results from misidentification of black bears has been proved false. Those attempting to study the Bigfoot phenomenon scientifically, especially members of the so-called skeptical community, should respond by rejecting this hypothesis, and should in the future refrain from offering the hypothesis as a plausible explanation for the Bigfoot phenomenon.

Taken together with the results of Glickman’s analysis, the results in this paper indicate that some species of animal other than the American black bear is responsible for the Bigfoot phenomenon observed in Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Northern California, and Idaho. The animal species responsible remains unidentified. The Bigfoot phenomenon in these states may be the result of an uncataloged animal, or it may result from misidentification of some other species of cataloged animal.

Obviously, if these creatures exist, the opposite must also be true: sasquatches are mistaken for black bears, especially since many people who might see one would refuse to believe it, and assume they had seen a bear. Thus, the eyewitness testimony record with respect to misidentification of bears with sasquatches balances out to some degree with converse mistaken identities.

[Skeptical Greg]

Obviously, if these creatures exist, the opposite must also be true: sasquatches are mistaken for black bears, especially since many people who might see one would refuse to believe it, and assume they had seen a bear. Thus, the eyewitness testimony record with respect to misidentification of bears with sasquatches balances out to some degree with converse mistaken identities.

Lets bold some different text..


If they don't exist, they are not being mistaken for anything...

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Obviously, if these creatures exist, the opposite must also be true: sasquatches are mistaken for black bears, especially since many people who might see one would refuse to believe it, and assume they had seen a bear. Thus, the eyewitness testimony record with respect to misidentification of bears with sasquatches balances out to some degree with converse mistaken identities.
Lets bold some different text..

If you must.

If they don't exist, they are not being mistaken for anything...

That should be quite obvious.

[bjb]

I find it odd that so many bears are sighted and photographed but no bigfeet. Bears have figured out where humans like to camp because this is a good source of food. They conduct night raids on campgrounds and they are a nuisance to campers but the bigfeet stay away for some reason. Something else that gets my attention is the way bears swarm at rivers when the salmon are swimming upstream to reproduce. I understand that bears are usually doing whatever it is they do in the woods, but they forget their shyness when the salmon are available. Where are the bigfeet at this time and why are they missing out on such an easy meal?

[Huntster]

I find it odd that so many bears are sighted and photographed but no bigfeet.

Maybe there are good reasons for that. Like:

1) There may be 200 - 500 bears for each sasquatch
2) Sasquatches are more shy than bears

Bears have figured out where humans like to camp because this is a good source of food. They conduct night raids on campgrounds and they are a nuisance to campers but the bigfeet stay away for some reason.

There are plenty of reports of nighttime raids on camps by sasquatches.

Something else that gets my attention is the way bears swarm at rivers when the salmon are swimming upstream to reproduce. I understand that bears are usually doing whatever it is they do in the woods, but they forget their shyness when the salmon are available. Where are the bigfeet at this time and why are they missing out on such an easy meal?

I've been to a number of those rivers where bears "swarm" during salmon runs. There are very, very few of them, especially in the case of brown bears.

Look for a photo of black bears fishing in close proximity like the famous McNeil River brown bear photos. Anan Creek is well known for high densities of black bears, yet they are not seen en masse, and the terrain is dense rainforest, unlike McNeil River, where you can see bears at long distances.

Plus, again, there are many more bears than there are sasquatches. I doubt sasquatches "swarm" anywhere.

[luchog]

Not even close. Like Mad Horn, if you'd consider instead of conclude, perhaps you'd learn a few things.
[quote]
I spent many years considering, even beleiveing that I'd had an encounter myself. Fortunately, after due consideration, I've come to the only logical conclusion.
[quote]
Since Ethan A. Blight's "Relationships between the American Black Bear Population and the Bigfoot Phenomenon" is no longer available online (that I could find), I've cited it here. It can be read online here: (http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse_arc hive.html)

The glaring methodological flaws just escaped you completely, i'm assuming.

The author makes a whole lot of unwarranted, and highly favourable, assumptions; particularly with regard to linearity of the reported sighting/bear sighting relationship. Not the only unjustified and prejudicial assumption, merely the most obviously flawed. Not going to go through the trouble of picking apart the numerous other flaws, as anyone with more than two active brain cells should be able to see them.

[Huntster]

The glaring methodological flaws just escaped you completely, i'm assuming.

The author makes a whole lot of unwarranted, and highly favourable, assumptions; particularly with regard to linearity of the reported sighting/bear sighting relationship.

Quite the opposite. Notice the reference to Glickman, and the two classes; A and B.

Not going to go through the trouble of picking apart the numerous other flaws, as anyone with more than two active brain cells should be able to see them.

Why don't you give those with so few active brain cells an education.

Show us something (I've shown you, and so far, all you've done is opine).

[Mad Hom]

Maybe there are good reasons for that. Like:

1) There may be 200 - 500 bears for each sasquatch
2) Sasquatches are more shy than bears

Objection your honor!! Defense is speculating!!


There are plenty of reports of nighttime raids on camps by sasquatches.

Your honor let the record reflect that the keyword here is....."reports"



I've been to a number of those rivers where bears "swarm" during salmon runs. There are very, very few of them, especially in the case of brown bears.

Good for you....I've seen National Geographic specials where they were swarming.....Tomayto...Tomahto I guess.

Plus, again, there are many more bears than there are sasquatches. I doubt sasquatches "swarm" anywhere.

Objection........your honor once again the Defense is speculating here...we don't even know if there actually ARE Sasquatches...let alone how numerous they are.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Maybe there are good reasons for that. Like:

1) There may be 200 - 500 bears for each sasquatch
2) Sasquatches are more shy than bears

Objection your honor!! Defense is speculating!!

No kidding?

Do you know why?: BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS.

Quote:
There are plenty of reports of nighttime raids on camps by sasquatches.

Your honor let the record reflect that the keyword here is....."reports"

That's right.

Quote:
I've been to a number of those rivers where bears "swarm" during salmon runs. There are very, very few of them, especially in the case of brown bears.

Good for you....I've seen National Geographic specials where they were swarming.....Tomayto...Tomahto I guess.

Been to McNeil or Brooks, have you?

Did you notice they were brown bears?

Quote:
Plus, again, there are many more bears than there are sasquatches. I doubt sasquatches "swarm" anywhere.

Objection........your honor once again the Defense is speculating here...we don't even know if there actually ARE Sasquatches...let alone how numerous they are.

If this was a court of law, I'm afraid you skeptics would be SOL.

[Yeah_Right]

If this was a court of law, I'm afraid you skeptics would be SOL.

I really don't pretend to be an expert in law, but I very much doubt the "evidence" for largefoot would hold up in court. If I am not mistaken, the reports are little more than hearsay, and certainly any "scientific" evidence is inconclusive. I think even a court would need a body to find in favour of a large hairy stinky guy wandering in the woods.

[carcharodon]

Have you seeen this ?


Bigfootologists claim the maker of these feet, modeled them after the print from which the cast you see was made ..

Right down to the crack in the heel ..
The Bigfoot who made the print had a scar... Uhhh Huh .. We all believe that ..

I'm thinking you wouldn't make a very good detective. Take a look at those fake feet...then look CLOSELY at the cast.

1. The toes are of completely different shape and size.

2. There are larger gaps between the toes (particularly at the end of the toes).

3. Side curvature is different.

This is not rocket science. If those fake feet made that cast they should match up completely. They don't.

The fake feet are quite obviously an average attempt to emulate what we see in the cast. An average attempt, but no more so than that. Attention to specific details was clearly not carried out. The fake feet are obviously not what made that cast track.

[Huntster]

I really don't pretend to be an expert in law, but I very much doubt the "evidence" for largefoot would hold up in court. If I am not mistaken, the reports are little more than hearsay, and certainly any "scientific" evidence is inconclusive.

Jury pools are (fortunately) rarely filled with scientists.

I think even a court would need a body to find in favour of a large hairy stinky guy wandering in the woods.

A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.

Just the testimony from law officers would be enough to establish their existence in a court of law.

Stick to science. Scientists have the hardest heads and hearts in existence.

[Steven Howard]

A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.

Name ten.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.
Name ten.

Twenty five here (http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html).

Here's (http://mitglied.lycos.de/peterwill/penal9.htm) another gang of them.

Here's (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2005/04/26/Opinion/Texas.Possible.Wrongful.Execution-937355.shtml?norewrite200611291956&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com) another interesting one.

Shall I continue?

[Steven Howard]

Twenty five here (http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html).

Here's (http://mitglied.lycos.de/peterwill/penal9.htm) another gang of them.

Here's (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2005/04/26/Opinion/Texas.Possible.Wrongful.Execution-937355.shtml?norewrite200611291956&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com) another interesting one.

Shall I continue?

I'm not sure how many of those people were actually hanged, but that's beside the point. In every one of those cases, there was, at the very least, sworn testimony in open court given as evidence for the prosecution. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think there's sworn testimony in open court as to the existence of Bigfoot.

ETA: The contention on those pages is that those people were all innocent. So, better to say that people have been wrongfully convicted of capital crimes on less evidence than there is for Bigfoot. But so what? I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm thinking you wouldn't make a very good detective. Take a look at those fake feet...then look CLOSELY at the cast.

1. The toes are of completely different shape and size.

2. There are larger gaps between the toes (particularly at the end of the toes).

3. Side curvature is different.

This is not rocket science. If those fake feet made that cast they should match up completely. They don't.

The fake feet are quite obviously an average attempt to emulate what we see in the cast. An average attempt, but no more so than that. Attention to specific details was clearly not carried out. The fake feet are obviously not what made that cast track.Is that you Jeff ?

It's clear you haven't used any fake feet to make any print's or casts ...

Got anything else ?

[carcharodon]

Is that you Jeff ?

Jeff who? You mean Meldrum? LOL. Too funny.

It's clear you haven't used any fake feet to make any print's or casts .......and it's clear you didn't look closely at the cast before giving your 'expert' opinion. Don't get too upset though. We are all allowed some 'oversights' now and then I guess.

Pst, take a look how flat those wooden toes are. How do you propose they made the toes look longer and narrower in that cast, as well as a larger gap between the digits? Can you explain? Did the wooden toes morph with EVERY SINGLE ONE of them changing total shape and size?

How did this occur Diogenes?

Got anything else ?Why, do I need to have anything else? You havent given me reason to.

[bjb]

Those cases where someone may have been wrongly hanged relied on an important piece of evidence that the bigfoot believers do not have: a dead body.

[thomps1d]

Jury pools are (fortunately) rarely filled with scientists.

It's only fortunate if you're not the one on trial. Personally, if I had to go to trial for any kind of major offense, I'd much rather have a jury of people who I know are capable of rationally analysing evidence to come to a logical conclusion rather than people who think that Jay Leno's monologue is proper evidence.

Of course, if you're trying to prove something so absurd as the existence of bigfoot, you'd naturally not want scientists. You'd want the most gullible, slow-witted, mouth-breathing, cousin-lovin', truck-drivin', boot-stompin', superstitious people you could possibly find. You know, the sort of people that would look at the Patterson film and not immediately see that it's a guy in a suit.


A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.

That speaks to problems with the legal system, not to the strength of the arguments for bigfoot's existence.

Just the testimony from law officers would be enough to establish their existence in a court of law.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't actually think that through before posting it. Otherwise, we'd have to wonder what other silly things law enforcement officers could attest to in the court of law that don't exist.

Officer: "Yes, your honour, I swear that I saw a unicorn. No, no, it couldn't be that I was really tired from a long shift, or that I just saw it out of the corner of my eye, or that I'm just making stuff up."

Judge: "Well, that settles it. Unicorns obviously exist. It's true. :) "

Scientists have the hardest heads and hearts in existence.

Yeah, those darn scientists with the hard heads and hearts...they're so wrapped up in their little science-world that they couldn't possibly ever do something good for other people.

Wait, what's that you say? Vaccines? Extending human lifespans? Increasing our standards of living?

They don't exist. A police officer told me so. It's true. :)

[Beleth]

The rationale behind my lack of belief in Bigfoot can be best shown by comparing it to a species I do believe in: Kiwa hirsuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwa_hirsuta).

K. hirsuta is a 6-inch long, pale, lobster-like creature which lives 7,200 feet below the ocean's surface approximately 900 miles south of Easter Island. It's so different from other animals that not only does it rate its own genus and species, it rates its own family (the classification level above genus): Kiwaidae.

6 inches long... that's the size of a salad plate.
More than a mile below the surface.
Nine hundred miles away from anywhere you would expect to find a human.

Let that sink in for a minute.
Picture how unimaginably unlikely it is that anyone would ever actually find one of these creatures.

I believe that these creatures exist.
Why?
Because of the quality of evidence.

There exists a sample of one.
There exist clear pictures of this sample.
The discoverers (Macpherson, Vrijenhoek, et al.) are renowned through the scientific world for their study of underwater life.

There is a level I have for belief, a "high bar" if you will, and the quality of evidence for K. hirsuta clears that bar. The quality of evidence for Bigfoot does not. There's far more evidence for Bigfoot, granted, but quantity obviously does not substitute for quality; if one takes a test where one needs a 90% score to pass, taking the test a thousand times and getting an 89% every single time is still a failure. Meanwhile, one only has to get a score of 90% once to pass.

When Bigfoot evidence is of the same level of quality that the K. hirsuta evidence is, then I will believe in them. But not until.

[Mad Hom]

Jeff who? You mean Meldrum? LOL. Too funny.

....and it's clear you didn't look closely at the cast before giving your 'expert' opinion. Don't get too upset though. We are all allowed some 'oversights' now and then I guess.

Pst, take a look how flat those wooden toes are. How do you propose they made the toes look longer and narrower in that cast, as well as a larger gap between the digits? Can you explain? Did the wooden toes morph with EVERY SINGLE ONE of them changing total shape and size?

How did this occur Diogenes?

Why, do I need to have anything else? You havent given me reason to.

Newsflash Carcharodon....

You don't have a picture of the the foot that (allegedly) made all these silly prints so what's your point?

Seems us Skeptics...bring our stuff with us...you know pictures of fake feet that we believe are to blame for all this bigfoot nonsense....Let me ask you one simple direct question...

Do you have the foot that (allegedly) made these tracks?

Until such time that you do have....the foot....your cakehole should probably be shut.........because you have absolutely no idea whatosever in no way shape or form that a real live Bigfeet made those prints.

[Huntster]

Of course, if you're trying to prove something so absurd as the existence of bigfoot, you'd naturally not want scientists. You'd want the most gullible, slow-witted, mouth-breathing, cousin-lovin', truck-drivin', boot-stompin', superstitious people you could possibly find. You know, the sort of people that would look at the Patterson film and not immediately see that it's a guy in a suit.

My statement was simple:

A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.

That speaks to problems with the legal system, not to the strength of the arguments for bigfoot's existence.

I think it addresses both.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Just the testimony from law officers would be enough to establish their existence in a court of law.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't actually think that through before posting it.

Poorly chosen words. Let me try again:

The testimony of law officers on official reports would be very strong legal evidence of their existence in a court of law.

Officer: "Yes, your honour, I swear that I saw a unicorn. No, no, it couldn't be that I was really tired from a long shift, or that I just saw it out of the corner of my eye, or that I'm just making stuff up."

Judge: "Well, that settles it. Unicorns obviously exist. It's true. "

I wonder how many unicorns are reported by law enforcement officers? We know sasquatch reports have been filed.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Scientists have the hardest heads and hearts in existence.

Yeah, those darn scientists with the hard heads and hearts...they're so wrapped up in their little science-world that they couldn't possibly ever do something good for other people.

Wait, what's that you say? Vaccines? Extending human lifespans? Increasing our standards of living?

Hey, great stuff! Scientists do wonderful things, even if they have hard heads or hearts.

[Huntster]

The rationale behind my lack of belief in Bigfoot can be best shown by comparing it to a species I do believe in: Kiwa hirsuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwa_hirsuta).

K. hirsuta is a 6-inch long, pale, lobster-like creature which lives 7,200 feet below the ocean's surface approximately 900 miles south of Easter Island. It's so different from other animals that not only does it rate its own genus and species, it rates its own family (the classification level above genus): Kiwaidae.

6 inches long... that's the size of a salad plate.
More than a mile below the surface.
Nine hundred miles away from anywhere you would expect to find a human.

Let that sink in for a minute.
Picture how unimaginably unlikely it is that anyone would ever actually find one of these creatures.

I believe that these creatures exist.
Why?
Because of the quality of evidence.

There exists a sample of one.
There exist clear pictures of this sample.

That is a remarkable story of discovery. Now compare that to the slow offical recognition of giant squid, a creature of much larger size in a similar environment.

There's far more evidence for Bigfoot, granted, but quantity obviously does not substitute for quality; if one takes a test where one needs a 90% score to pass, taking the test a thousand times and getting an 89% every single time is still a failure. Meanwhile, one only has to get a score of 90% once to pass.

If only 1% of the sasquatch evidence is true, they're out there.

When Bigfoot evidence is of the same level of quality that the K. hirsuta evidence is, then I will believe in them. But not until.

Do you think it's appropriate to (for the first time) commit a small effort by state/federal/provincial wildlife management agencies, even if it's just polling biologists, officially requesting any reports of sasquatch sign, etc?

[RayG]

That is a remarkable story of discovery. Now compare that to the slow offical recognition of giant squid, a creature of much larger size in a similar environment.

At least with the giant squid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2910849.stm) there have been actual body parts to examine (since 1925). Hard to compare that to bigfoot.

RayG

[carcharodon]

Newsflash Carcharodon....

You don't have a picture of the the foot that (allegedly) made all these silly prints so what's your point?

Ah but yes we do. The claim is that the Wallace fake wooden foot 'allegedly' made the track which was cast, and which Diogenes refered to. There is a picture of it. We can deduce by looking at the picture that it obviously WASN'T what made the track that was cast. The toes are of different shape and size, there is far too much difference in spacing between the toes and the side curvatures don't match. Now unless you are a total fool or as blind as a bat anybody with any semblance of intellience should be able to deduce that Wallace fake feet do not match the track cast in the specific pic I was alluding to.

Seems us Skeptics...bring our stuff with us...you know pictures of fake feet that we believe are to blame for all this bigfoot nonsense....That would only count if the fake feet actually matched the cast. They don't in the picture in question so your point is mute.


Let me ask you one simple direct question...

Do you have the foot that (allegedly) made these tracks?I don't think I was born when that particular track was cast, so how could I have the foot?

Until such time that you do have....the foot....your cakehole should probably be shut.........Ah a message board fascist. Barking out orders. Is that the typical behaviour around here?

because you have absolutely no idea whatosever in no way shape or form that a real live Bigfeet made those prints.I never once claimed a bigfoot made that track which was cast. I simply pointed out that the Wallace fake obviously DIDN'T and I explained my reasoning in detail.

[Mad Hom]

Ah but yes we do. The claim is that the Wallace fake wooden foot 'allegedly' made the track which was cast, and which Diogenes refered to. There is a picture of it. We can deduce by looking at the picture that it obviously WASN'T what made the track that was cast. The toes are of different shape and size, there is far too much difference in spacing between the toes and the side curvatures don't match. Now unless you are a total fool or as blind as a bat anybody with any semblance of intellience should be able to deduce that Wallace fake feet do not match the track cast in the specific pic I was alluding to.

That would only count if the fake feet actually matched the cast. They don't in the picture in question so your point is mute.


I don't think I was born when that particular track was cast, so how could I have the foot?

Ah a message board fascist. Barking out orders. Is that the typical behaviour around here?

I never once claimed a bigfoot made that track which was cast. I simply pointed out that the Wallace fake obviously DIDN'T and I explained my reasoning in detail.

Carky....my whole post zipped right over your head didn't it?

If not the Wallace fakes than what made the print? The way you talk about Bigfeetsus over on the mother thread THEY already ARE real...so it stands to reason that you BLEEV that a real foot made those prints. I mean you even went as far as to say..

"How do we know a squatch hasn't been filmed AGAIN?"

So don't for a second try and play it off like you don't think that that footprint wasn't made by a real foot.

Was it made by Alderfoot or Bigfoot? I can't say either way...I wasn't there...and neither were you.

[LAL]

Which "Bigfootologist" was that?

Green, for one. Titmus' copies were for sale in the area. I'm not sure if the line on the heel is a crack or a carved line - in imitation of one photo out of several hundred, perhaps?

Fake wooden feet have a "snowshoe" effect. They can imprint in a soft substrate (such as the sand at Alki beach where tube got "pressure ridges") but they cannot leave deep imprints in firm, clayey sand such as at Bluff Creek where a boot barely made a dent.

"The Bluff Creek Tracks
John Green


Maybe it's time for a history lesson before the last available witness, which I seem to be, passes on.

The tracks that were observed in the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California in the 1950's are not just another set of tracks that can easily be set aside as something tainted by claims of fakery while other tracks are still presumed to be genuine. They are the base layer of the bedrock on which the whole investigation is founded.

Far more tracks have been seen and cast and photographed at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.Their importance goes far beyond the fact that they started the process of bringing the subject to widespread public attention and saddled it with the ridicule-prone name of "Bigfoot".

For all the books and websites and investigating organizations this subject has spawned and the huge public following it now has, it still involves only two facts that cannot be contested. One is that thousands of people claim to have encountered huge, hair-covered bipedal primates. The other is that something makes huge, humanlike footprints.

Of all the reported encounters, in only one case is there a backing of solid photographic evidence. That evidence comes from Bluff Creek:

Far more tracks have been seen and cast and photographed at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.
Repeated observations of tracks of identifiable individuals have been documented at Bluff Creek far more than anywhere else.
The tracks at Bluff Creek have been investigated more thoroughly and by more people and over a longer period than anywhere else.
More top-quality casts and photographs of tracks have been made at Bluff Creek than anywhere else.
The tracks at Bluff Creek appeared at a time and place when and where there was no knowledge of anything to imitate, circumstances that can never occur again.
The Bluff Creek tracks started the life-long quests of Bob Titmus, who found more solid evidence than anyone else, and Roger Patterson, who took the only good movie.
Like most British Columbians, I grew up familiar with stories of Sasquatch giants I and had begun to investigate them seriously before Jerry Crew made his famous cast, but it was at Bluff Creek that I first saw that the huge tracks are real, and trying to establish what makes them is what I have been doing ever since.

For those whose familiarity with this subject may not go back that far, a few facts:

The big tracks started appearing overnight where a construction crew was building a road along the west side of the uninhabited Bluff Creek valley in the summer of 1958. They showed up every few days not just in the loose dirt on the road, but also digging deeply into the harder surface of the steep sidehill at places above the road and below it.


Jerry Crew
After some weeks Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator, got from a taxidermist friend, Bob Titmus, instructions and material to make a cast of one of the prints. A picture of Jerry holding the cast appeared in a newspaper in Eureka, and went out on the wire all over the continent. With it was a story in which the name "Bigfoot" was first published.

On seeing the picture in a Canadian newspaper I immediately drove to Bluff Creek to investigate, saw a few old but impressive tracks, talked to Jerry Crew, Bob Titmus and other witnesses and inspected the terrain the tracks traversed, on and off the road. Those tracks were roughly 16 inches long and matched very closely a tracing I had of a cast of one of the tracks found at the scene of a sasquatch sighting report in British Columbia in 1941.

A few weeks later I got a letter from Bob Titmus saying that he and another man had found and cast distinctly different tracks, roughly 15 inches long, on a sandbar in the creek below where the road crew was working. I immediately returned to Bluff Creek and saw for myself that these new tracks were impressed about an inch deep in damp sand packed so hard that my own prints hardly marked it and that they were in a situation where the use of any sort of machinery to make them appeared to be impossible.

It is carvings of those tracks, not the 16-inch "Bigfoot" tracks that a nephew of Ray Wallace has displayed in photographs. They are fitted with straps so they can be walked on like snowshoes, but like snowshoes there is no way that human weight could impress them deeply into hard material.

In the next year and a half I was back at Bluff Creek several more times, spending about six weeks in all, and saw the 15" tracks in three more locations and also a third type of tracks, about 14" long, in another location east of Bluff Creek.

I never saw the 16" track again at Bluff Creek but did see tracks that resembled it farther south at Hyampom in 1963. It was also reported seen frequently in 1963 and 1964 when logging was going on in the Bluff Creek valley, and Roger Patterson made a good cast of it there in 1964. The 15" tracks were also repeatedly seen, and were photographed and cast by a number of people in that period. Sometimes they were was accompanied by tracks roughly 13", and René Dahinden and I saw those tracks together in three different places at Bluff Creek in 1967, in one instance being able to study hundreds of both tracks.

Later in 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went to Bluff Creek, because of the tracks René and I had seen, and not only got a movie of the creature but watched it making tracks which they later cast. These tracks were also approximately 14". If it is the same as the 14" from years before then there are at least four distinct tracks that have been observed at Bluff Creek, if it is different then there are five. There is also a 12" track usually discounted because it is within human range. For all of these, while they remain recognizable as individuals, there is a considerable range of shapes, toe positions, length of stride, etc., conforming to slopes, obstacles and other influences.

Those are the Bluff Creek tracks that I know about. Over the years there were, of course, far more that I didn't see; many other people who investigated them; hundreds who went just to see for themselves after being told about them, and some who reported coming on them far from any road when they were timber cruising or road locating.


A Bluff Creek track

Ray Wallace is connected to all this in only two ways that have been established. The men who first reported the 16" tracks were his employees, and it was the Bluff Creek events that started him on his long career, mainly after he moved to Washington, of producing and trying to sell crudely-faked track casts and photographs and telling outrageous whoppers about his adventures with "Bigfoots."

Ray wasn't around any of the times I went to Bluff Creek and I never met him, but I was told right from the beginning of his reputation as a practical joker and yarn spinner, the latter being was amply confirmed when he phoned me and wrote letters to me over the years.

There were people in California, of course, who were sure the footprints had to be faked, and some of them fingered Ray Wallace as the person they "knew" had done it, but I have outlined the massive task that would have been involved, and no evidence was ever brought forward of any way that anyone could have done it.

A magazine publisher in the East, who may not even have known that Ray had moved away before most of the events took place, pronounced a few years ago that the people who investigated at Bluff Creek were blind fools and that Ray had faked all the tracks. He also proclaimed that Ray Wallace had told Roger Patterson just where to go to get his movie. He knew that because Ray wrote and told him so. By accident or design it was this man whose comments were sought by a Seattle reporter when Ray's son announced after his death that Ray had told the family he had done the deed. Maybe Ray did tell them that, but it was a claim he never made in public, so he never risked being been called on to prove that he could do it.

And whether the fault lies with Ray or with the next generation, the photographs they displayed indicate members of the Wallace family today don't even know what the original "Bigfoot" tracks looked like.

It is that sort of "evidence" that started a media storm in which the story grew and twisted until the world was told that not just all of the footprints, but also the Patterson movie, were fakes produced by Ray Wallace.

And it is on that basis that people, some of whom even claim to take this subject seriously and continue to accept far less well-tested evidence, are now using the term "the Wallace tracks." They aren't Wallace tracks, they are the Bluff Creek tracks.

Maybe I've lived too long, I don't yet have a grave to roll over in."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/bctracks.html

[LAL]

Then I would say that LAL is wrong on that account.

There is no doubt Wallace made "bigfoot sandals" and made some tracks that were seen by some as authentic.

There is also no doubt that Wallace did not make all the tracks that have been found.

To my knowlege, Coleman is the only "bigfootologist" who claims to have found a match to a trackway and so stated in his latest book. Further investigation showed that trackway was not a match either. (I'm never wrong, Huntster. ;))

Wallace, I've read, made prints to show the tourists near a pond behind his souvenier shop in Toledo, Wash., years after Bluff Creek. The feet were prominently displayed on the wall; seems only the media thought they were a surprise.

He photographed his wife in a suit and sold the photos, but he could not have told Patterson where to look since he didn't know where the filming took place. He also wouldn't have known where the Crew tracks were found. (Those are the ones the family "always knew" he faked - with feet an inch too short while he was off on a business trip.) I've already mentioned the snowshoe effect. Those prints showed deep toe impressions going up the mountain. Green examined them personally.

Investigators were on to Wallace from the get-go. I'd say there's considerable doubt he fooled anyone wth faked tracks, except, perhaps, the tourists.

[LAL]

I posted the link to this on the other thread, but here it is again, spelled out for all 7-year olds:

"Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Frame 352, and all that
For some time now I’ve been toying with the idea of writing a blog post about sasquatch, North America’s legendary cryptic ape. And, generally, I’ve decided that doing so would be a really bad idea: I am chicken, and as someone trying to gain a reputation within the academic world, I think that even expressing an interest in issues like this is a bad idea. That’s ridiculously unfair of course, stemming only from ill-informed knee-jerk negativity to this subject, and given that scientific inquiry of any phenomenon is a worthwhile pursuit, I like to think that more zoologists should actually get informed about mystery animals (for a previous post making the same argument go here). I note that hardly any hard-line sceptics of things such as sasquatch display familiarity with the literature on the subject [adjacent image shows frame 310 of the Patterson film: see below].
In the interests of hypothesis testing, I finally decided: what the hell. My hypothesis is: will writing about sasquatch negatively affect my career prospects? Well, let’s test the hypothesis. Let me state from the start that I do not “believe” in sasquatch, nor am I planning to promote either an anti-sasquatch, or a pro-sasquatch, point of view. What I have learnt from research on this area is that – contrary to the assertions of some – the evidence for sasquatch is, at the very least, scientifically interesting and worthy of investigation.

While purported evidence for the supposed reality of sasquatch continues to attract strong criticism, more interesting in my view is that a number of academically qualified primatologists have recently gone on record in stating that the evidence for sasquatch is scientifically compelling. These people do not only include well-known sasquatch proponents, such as the late Grover Krantz (1931-2002) of Washington State University, or Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University. Daris Swindler (professor emeritus of physical anthropology at the University of Washington, author of Atlas of Primate Anatomy) stated, after examining the Skookum body cast (a large impression, made in mud, from Washington state, apparently created by a reclining man-like primate), that the heel impression visible on the cast is definitely that of a giant unknown primate. J. H. Chilcutt, an expert on human and non-human primate fingerprints (who initially examined casts of sasquatch tracks because he felt confident that he could debunk them), has expressed his absolute confidence in the validity of dermal ridges on footprints as demonstrative of the reality of sasquatch. On the Whitewolf Entertainment TV documentary ‘Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science’ (2003) he stated “I stake my career on it”.

Here I am going to discuss one particular piece of evidence for sasquatch: the Patterson-Gimlin film. This is that famous short piece of film that you’ve probably seen on TV many times: it depicts what appears to be an obviously female sasquatch striding across a clearing from left to right [for M. K. Davis’ stabilised version of the film go here]. You’ve probably heard that the film has been revealed to be a hoax. Well, sorry, that ain’t true.

On October 20th 1967, Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin claimed to capture on film an unexpected encounter with an adult female sasquatch. The resulting footage, filmed at Bluff Creek, northern California, contains 952 frames, but uncertainty over the filming speed affects the real-time duration of the event. Patterson’s camera was either set at 16 or 24 frames per second (fps), with 16 fps now considered more likely. It is not true that the footage is grainy or blurry, and high-resolution enlargements such as those produced by M. K. Davis (here shown standing next to the best of the enlargements) reveal a surprising amount of detail. Literally whole books have been written about the footage (e.g. Bayanov 1997), so I will try and keep these comments brief. In order to be impartial, I will refer to the alleged sasquatch as TAS (= The Alleged Sasquatch).

1. TAS looks genuine. Its coat is glossy, conforms to the underlying contours, muscular bulges, joints and other structures in the body, and looks realistic compared to living mammals. What appears to be a shallow parting extends axially along the spine and between the buttocks [in adjacent image, note the demarcated buttocks and apparent wear on the buttocks]. As TAS moves, its muscles (in its legs and elsewhere) can be seen to bulge and flex beneath the fur as they do in living mammals. TAS’s gait is fluid and natural and it differs in subtle details of posture and proportion from humans (see points 2 and 3). Its toes are seen to lift at one point. Its large breasts bounce and sway in a manner which looks realistic compared to how unsupported human breasts move during locomotion. It is also intriguing that TAS’s compliant gait and protruding heel match features reported by eyewitnesses (see point 2). High quality enlargements have been published of key frames from the footage several times (e.g. Bayanov 1997, Murphy et al. 2004) so it is easy to check all of these assertions. Put in its simplest terms: despite claims to the contrary, TAS looks realistic.

2. TAS walks with a compliant gait, and not with the same striding knee-locking gait of humans [adjacent image shows frame 352, the most famous and oft-shown part of the film]. Its knee is never fully straightened in its step cycle, even in the supporting phase. Its arms swing slightly more than those of humans, and its hands and wrists are held supinated and slightly flexed with the fingers curved (this is unlike the normal hand posture of humans). It’s clearly possible that all of these features could be faked by a knowledgeable human, and Daegling & Schmitt (1999) argued that the gait and speed used by TAS can be reproduced by humans. That person would, however, have to not only conform physically to the dimensions of TAS (see point 3), but would also have to be very good at walking with an unusual gait which is practised so well that it has convinced experts in biomechanics and primate anatomy (see point 4). That person would also have to be an expert, or at least supervised by one, on the eyewitness data (which describes identical points of posture and morphology). It is unlikely that such a person exists and/or was available to Patterson and/or Gimlin in 1967, and extensive biographical research on Patterson and Gimlin and their friends and colleagues has failed to uncover the existence of any such person.

3. TAS is physically large and with proportions that appear to be unlike those of our species. Its intermembral index (the ratio of humerus + radius length to femur + tibia length) is between 80 and 90, whereas in our species it averages 72*, and its breadth across its shoulders is about 35% of its total height. Krantz (1999) asserted that some humans (including inuit people) have a shoulder breadth that exceeds 30% of total height (this is apparently not the case in people that exceed 2 m in height), and that other data also indicates that the creature exceeds in torso width any human. Krantz (1999) concluded on the basis of this evidence ‘I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly’. However, Daegling & Schmitt (1999) challenged this torso-breadth data, and argued that the estimates do overlap with that from tall humans.

* In chimps and gorillas the intermembral indices are 106 and 117, respectively. TAS therefore seems intermediate between chimps and humans with regard to this feature.

Patterson and Gimlin photographed, and took casts from, a trackway which (they asserted) was made by TAS. These photographs and tracks survive today and both (i) appear genuine* and (ii) correspond with the details of TAS’s size and gait as seen in the footage. Average track length was 36.8 cm, and because the full length of TAS’s foot sole can be seen in several frames, the sole : total height ratio of about 1 : 5 gives a rough height of 184 cm. A similar height has been estimated by triangulation, by working out how the stride length used by TAS matches with humans of various statures, and by other methods.

* That is, like other ‘good’ sasquatch prints, they appear to have been made by a large, very heavy hominid with a flexible foot that exhibits several consistent anatomical novelties.

4. Several workers experienced with primate biomechanics and locomotion have examined the footage, and in several cases have published comments on it. All have concluded either that the film is genuine and depicts a non-human primate, or have admitted that their examination was inconclusive.

Dmitri Donskoy [Chief of the Chair of Biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow] concluded ‘[my analysis reveals] the walk of the creature as a natural movement without any signs of artfulness which would appear in intentional imitation. At the same time, with all the diversity of human gaits, such a walk as demonstrated by the creature in the film is absolutely nontypical of man’.

D. W. Grieve [Reader in Biomechanics, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London] concluded ‘The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps [as mentioned above, it was apparently filmed at 16 fps]. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man’.

Grover Krantz, well known as an advocate of sasquatch but nonetheless still an experienced and qualified anthropologist, argued that the creature’s size, proportions and gait demonstrated its genuine nature, concluding ‘there is no possibility that the film can be a man in a fur suit’. Bayanov (1997) cited views from several Russian biomechanists who thought that the creature’s gait could not be reproduced by a human. Jürgen Konczak [associate professor in the School of Kinesiology and director of the Human Sensorimotor Control Laboraties at Minnesota University] concluded that the creature’s gait indicated that it was genuine and non-human. Other ‘positive’ interpretations of the footage, voiced by experienced, qualified biomechanists and/or primatologists, were broadcast in the Whitewolf Entertainment TV documentary ‘Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science’ (2003).

In view of this large number of ‘positive’ interpretations, most of which come from authoritative, technically qualified experts who do not have any axe to grind on the issue of sasquatch, what evidence has been marshalled by those who assert that the film is faked? To date, none. No analysis has been performed which shows that the creature can be explained as a man in a suit. Published objections have either asserted that the animal walks in a manner ‘consistent in general terms with the bipedal striding gait of modern man’ (Napier 1974), or have pointed to the presence of furry breasts, the presence of a sagittal cranial crest in a female, or the presence of breasts in a creature without female-like hips and a waist, as problems showing that the film must have been faked. These objections are all clearly erroneous (e.g. it is difficult to be confident that furry breasts are somehow impossible – while many primates do sport naked pectoral skin around their nipples and areolae, human breasts are hairy, it’s just that the hairs are very small and thin; sagittal crests are size-related, and only absent in the females of most hominid species because females do not match adult males in the size of their cranial musculature; broad hips and a waist are characters of our species, and not of other hominids or primates [gorilla skeleton at left]). Napier’s objections were vague and have not been supported by other workers experienced in biomechanics.

David Daegling [associate professor of anthropology at Yale University] and Daniel Schmitt [assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology, Duke University Medical Center] published an article in Skeptical Inquirer in which they argued that TAS’s size and style of gait can be reproduced by people. They were still unable to assert that it was fake however, concluding ‘Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence’.

Multiple claims have been made that the footage was faked by a known individual, and that this individual has provided a death-bed confession, or something like that. It has been easy to knock down all of these claims and show them to be fabrications (e.g. Coleman 2003, Murphy et al. 2004, Vella 2004, Perez 2005).

5. In view of these observations, it is difficult to take seriously claims that TAS is actually some tall guy in a gorilla costume. Even today there is no maker of fake/synthetic fur, or of animal costumes, who can reproduce something this realistic, nor are there any suits which look so realistic, which allow the mimicry of moving musculature and breasts, and which are anatomically accurate compared to living primates. Two serious attempts have been made to reproduce the film using a man in a specially designed suit: one for the BBC TV series ‘The X Creatures’ [image at left]; the second for Kal Korff’s documentary ‘The Making of Bigfoot’. In both instances the resulting attempt to discredit the Patterson-Gimlin film backfired: their results look like a man in a monkey suit, and in no way come even close to resembling TAS in the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. Several special effects experts have been consulted on how possible it might be to reproduce what’s seen in the footage (this is particularly relevant as there have been repeated claims that someone in the Hollywood special effects community manufactured a suit for Patterson), including John Chambers [designer of the ape costumes seen in ‘Planet of the Apes’]. There has been unanimous agreement among these people that the creature seen in the footage exceeds in accuracy and realism the special effects available to workshops today, let alone those existing in 1967.
There’s a lot more that could be said on this subject, but I’ll leave it at that. I have not discussed Roger Patterson’s personal circumstances (relevant to claims that he faked the footage for money or fame), nor have I touched on the interesting story of what a farce Patterson and Gimlin’s eventual development and treatment of the film was. As Richard Greenwell (1942-2005) – former secretary of the International Society of Cryptozoology – said to me in a letter of March 2000: ‘In the big picture it matters little if Bigfoot exists or not; what matters is that proper procedure be followed in examining such evidence – or any evidence’.

UPDATE (29-11-2006): Loren Coleman has written a blog post about this one - see Napier, Naish, and Frame 352.

Refs - -
Bayanov, D. 1997. America’s Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. Crypto Logos, Moscow.

Daegling, D. J. & Schmitt, D. O. 1999. Bigfoot’s screen test. Skeptical Inquirer May/June 1999, 20-25.

Coleman, L. 2003. Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America. Paraview Pocket Books, New York.

Krantz, G. S. 1999. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. Hancock House, Surrey, B.C. & Blaine, WA.

Murphy, C. L., Green, J. & Steenburg, T. 2004. Meet the Sasquatch. Hancock House, Surrey, B.C. & Blaine, WA.

Napier, J. 1974. Bigfoot. Readers Union, Newton Abbot.

Perez, D. 2004. In defence of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Fortean Times 192, 36-37.

Vella, P. 2004. J’accuse. Animals & Men 34, 42-48."

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/11/frame-352-and-all-that.html

Note: See Meldrum for a rebuttal of Daegling & Schmitt's German Air Force argument. I'm too lazy to type it out.

Chilcutt staked his reputation, not his career. His reputation is so good he can afford to investigate without fear of being laughed off the force.

[Beleth]

That is a remarkable story of discovery. Now compare that to the slow offical recognition of giant squid, a creature of much larger size in a similar environment.I am not as familiar with that event as I am with K. hirsuta or Bigfoot. Do you have some links I could go look at?

If only 1% of the sasquatch evidence is true, they're out there.It's easier than that; if only one piece of the sasquatch evidence is true, they're out there.

The trouble is, the same could be said of Santa Claus, or psychokinesis. As I said originally, it's not the quantity, it's the quality, and a million pieces of poor quality do not substitute for one piece of high quality.

Do you think it's appropriate to (for the first time) commit a small effort by state/federal/provincial wildlife management agencies, even if it's just polling biologists, officially requesting any reports of sasquatch sign, etc?No, I no not think that it is appropriate to commit a small effort. In for a penny, in for a pound; if we're going to do this, we need to do this right. "Polling biologists for reports of sasquatch sign" it far too little and of far too low quality. We need someone of the level of Dian Fossey or Richard Vrijenhoek to take on the search for these creatures and actually find one. Bring one back to civilization. And yes, eventually perform an autopsy on one.

Until that happens, we're just messing around under the high bar.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for another generous helping of Spam Lu..

[Beleth]

A lot of folks have been hanged on evidence a lot weaker than what has been presented in support of the existence of sasquatches.
Just because humans are making errors bigger than believing in Bigfoot doesn't mean believing in Bigfoot isn't an error.

A wrong thing doesn't become right just because there are wronger things.

[Huntster]

....You don't have a picture of the the foot that (allegedly) made all these silly prints so what's your point?......

There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.

[Huntster]

....(I'm never wrong, Huntster. ;))....

I know that. I was writing that for the benefit of my skeptical friends here, who seemed to need some soothing words......:D

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is a remarkable story of discovery. Now compare that to the slow offical recognition of giant squid, a creature of much larger size in a similar environment.

I am not as familiar with that event as I am with K. hirsuta or Bigfoot. Do you have some links I could go look at?

Timeline: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_squid)

This species was first discovered in 1925, in the form of two tentacles found in the stomach of a sperm whale. In 1981, a Russian trawler in the Ross Sea, off the coast of Antarctica, caught a large squid with a total length of 13 feet / 4 m (see image at top), which was later identified as an immature female of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni. In 2003, a complete specimen was found near the surface with a total length of 6 m (20 feet) and a mantle length of 2.5 m (8 feet). On June 25, 2005, a specimen was captured at a depth of 1625 m while taking a toothfish from a longline off South Georgia Island. Although the mantle was not brought aboard, the mantle length was estimated at over 2.5 m (8 feet), and the tentacles measured 230cm. The animal is thought to have weighed between 150 and 200 kg.[3]

The first photos of a live specimen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/) occurred just the other day.

However, legends and tales from seafarers and whalers (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_seamonsters_2.html) have been reported for centuries.

Some of the earliest tales about huge, tentacled sea monsters date back to the 12th century when Norwegian seafarers described an awesome beast called a Kraken.

By the 18th century the Kraken still had a fearsome reputation. In The Natural History of Norway, the Bishop of Bergen likened it to a "floating island," adding, "It seems these are the creature's arms, and, it is said, if they were to lay hold of the largest man-of-war [a ship], they would pull it down to the bottom."

Over time the reputed size of these "monsters" was scaled down considerably, but stories persisted. An alleged encounter between a giant squid and a French naval vessel was the basis for Jules Verne's "squid of colossal dimensions" which was featured in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.

There is also an account of sailors being attacked by a giant squid after their ship sunk during the Second World War. At least one sailor was supposedly eaten. And even this year, French yachtsmen taking part in the appropriately named Jules Verne Trophy reported that a 26-foot-long (8-meter) squid clamped itself to their boat.

An early description of what is thought to be Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni appeared in an article entitled Hunting Sea Monsters in 1953. It was, Gilbert Voss wrote, "a squid that could qualify in the most lurid deep-sea drama."

There is some truth to this observation. Whalers who once worked the southern oceans were well aware of "deep-sea dramas" played out between colossal squid and sperm whales which fed in Antarctic waters. The whalers often discovered giant squid beaks inside the stomachs of these whales.

Professor Paul Rodhouse, head of biological sciences at the British Antarctic Survey, says whalers also noted deep scars and circular marks around the heads of their quarry.

"It's certain these were caused by the suckers and hooks of big squid," he said. "The whales would suffer quite a lot of damage in subduing Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni." .......

Quote:
If only 1% of the sasquatch evidence is true, they're out there.

It's easier than that; if only one piece of the sasquatch evidence is true, they're out there.

The trouble is, the same could be said of Santa Claus, or psychokinesis. As I said originally, it's not the quantity, it's the quality, and a million pieces of poor quality do not substitute for one piece of high quality.

A million pieces of poor quality strongly indicate that existence is reality, and the high quality is out there, if only the right resources were invested to obtain it.

Quote:
Do you think it's appropriate to (for the first time) commit a small effort by state/federal/provincial wildlife management agencies, even if it's just polling biologists, officially requesting any reports of sasquatch sign, etc?

No, I no not think that it is appropriate to commit a small effort.

Why am I not surprised with that answer?

Not even for official wildlife agencies to issue directives to report all such information to their agencies (almost no monetary investment), to report all such reports from hunters/public (almost no monetary investment)?

In for a penny, in for a pound; if we're going to do this, we need to do this right.

I'd like to see things done properly, but if not possible or likely, I'd like to see something done, period.

"Polling biologists for reports of sasquatch sign" it far too little and of far too low quality. We need someone of the level of Dian Fossey or Richard Vrijenhoek to take on the search for these creatures and actually find one. Bring one back to civilization. And yes, eventually perform an autopsy on one.

Gotta' kill it, huh?

[Huntster]

Just because humans are making errors bigger than believing in Bigfoot doesn't mean believing in Bigfoot isn't an error.[/url]

You're right:

Accepting poor evidence when the decision to kill another person is a big error.

Not accepting decent evidence when a wrong decision results in no evil is just stupid.

[quote]A wrong thing doesn't become right just because there are wronger things.

You don't know if it's wrong, and if it is, no evil will result after looking into the situation.

[Beleth]

Timeline: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_squid)



The first photos of a live specimen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/) occurred just the other day.

However, legends and tales from seafarers and whalers (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_seamonsters_2.html) have been reported for centuries.
Thank you for all that. How do the two sequences of events compare?

A million pieces of poor quality strongly indicate that existence is reality,There's really no response to this except "no, it doesn't."

and the high quality is out there, if only the right resources were invested to obtain it.I'll believe it when I see it.

Why am I not surprised with that answer?I couldn't tell you, since I am not a mind-reader.

Not even for official wildlife agencies to issue directives to report all such information to their agencies (almost no monetary investment), to report all such reports from hunters/public (almost no monetary investment)?What good would that do? It would certainly increase the quantity of evidence, but how would that increase the quality of the evidence?

I'd like to see things done properly, but if not possible or likely, I'd like to see something done, period.If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I'd rather see it not done than done wrong.

Gotta' kill it, huh?No. Think about it for a minute before you put such awful words in my mouth.

[Skeptical Greg]

There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos. We can clearly see the feet .. ( funny looking clown feet )

We can clearly see the prints and casts that we have been shown ..

We have not seen any prints being made by those feet .. ( Lu please spare us the smudge that someone or other, suggests is a print being made .. )


So, what was your point ?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

...The first photos of a live specimen occurred just the other day.

However, legends and tales from seafarers and whalers have been reported for centuries.

Thank you for all that. How do the two sequences of events compare?

With sasquatchery?

1) Giant squid are big
2) Giant squid were referred to for centuries before science accepted the legends

With gorillas?

1) Gorillas are big
2) Gorillas were referred to for centuries before science accepted the legends

Quote:
A million pieces of poor quality strongly indicate that existence is reality,

There's really no response to this except "no, it doesn't."

Yes, it is.

Other than this silly forum, have you ever heard of, known of, or can cite reports of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It is commonly referred to on this very forum by folks who call themselves skeptic, but it has no history with the Natives, there are no current or historical history of reports, and there are no footprints or other evidence offered.

Yet there is for sasquatches, as well as similar creatures throughout the world.

Quote:
and the high quality is out there, if only the right resources were invested to obtain it.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And you won't see it unless it's looked for.

Quote:
Not even for official wildlife agencies to issue directives to report all such information to their agencies (almost no monetary investment), to report all such reports from hunters/public (almost no monetary investment)?

What good would that do? It would certainly increase the quantity of evidence, but how would that increase the quality of the evidence?

If biologists knew that reports weren't going to be "career killers", Hell, you might be surprised what a simple policy letter might accomplish......

Quote:
I'd like to see things done properly, but if not possible or likely, I'd like to see something done, period.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. I'd rather see it not done than done wrong.

It's being done wrong now.

Happy?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.
We can clearly see the feet .. ( funny looking clown feet )

Actually, they're fairly impressive. Toe movement is apparent.

Not to mention the fact that the prints were cast, then photographed the very next day by a completely independent party.

We can clearly see the prints and casts that we have been shown ..

We have not seen any prints being made by those feet .. ( Lu please spare us the smudge that someone or other, suggests is a print being made .. )

Correct. The film doesn't show the foot hitting virgin soil and leaving the print.

What the film does show is the subject walking along the sandbar, it shows the bottom of the feet in more than one frame, the "second reel" shows print casting, and Laverty photographed those prints the next day.

So, what was your point ?

The PG film site had a moving film of a subject that looks like most sasquatch reports indicate what a sasquatch looks like, it hasn't been yet established as a hoax, prints were filmed being cast at the site, and independent parties investigating the site after the film was shot and photographing the footprints at that site.

And your point?

[Beleth]

With sasquatchery?
No, with K. hirsuta.

Yes, it is.No, it isn't.

Other than this silly forum, have you ever heard of, known of, or can cite reports of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?Only 1,130,000 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22flying+spaghetti+monster%22+-jref+-randi&btnG=Search) of them.

It is commonly referred to on this very forum by folks who call themselves skeptic, but it has no history with the Natives, there are no current or historical history of reports, and there are no footprints or other evidence offered.

Yet there is for sasquatches, as well as similar creatures throughout the world.What they have in common is that neither have passed the minimum requirements for a reasonable person to believe they exist.

If biologists knew that reports weren't going to be "career killers", Hell, you might be surprised what a simple policy letter might accomplish......Enlighten me. What does a simple policy letter accomplish?

It's being done wrong now.

Happy?Why do you ask me questions I answered before you asked them?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
With sasquatchery?

No, with K. hirsuta.

Figure it out.

Quote:
Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

End of game.

Quote:
Other than this silly forum, have you ever heard of, known of, or can cite reports of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Only 1,130,000 of them.

Evidence, please...........

Quote:
It is commonly referred to on this very forum by folks who call themselves skeptic, but it has no history with the Natives, there are no current or historical history of reports, and there are no footprints or other evidence offered.

Yet there is for sasquatches, as well as similar creatures throughout the world.

What they have in common is that neither have passed the minimum requirements for a reasonable person to believe they exist.

Says who?

You?

You're "reasonable"?

Quote:
If biologists knew that reports weren't going to be "career killers", Hell, you might be surprised what a simple policy letter might accomplish......

Enlighten me. What does a simple policy letter accomplish?

Wow.

Frankly, you've left me speachless.

I guess if you've gotta' ask, you wouldn't understand the answer if I gave it to you.

[carcharodon]

Carky....my whole post zipped right over your head didn't it?

No, but I think MY post zipped over YOUR head.

If not the Wallace fakes than what made the print? The way you talk about Bigfeetsus over on the mother thread THEY already ARE real...so it stands to reason that you BLEEV that a real foot made those prints.

I'm not addressing that point here in this thread. I have only one main point to adress in this particular thread. The point I addressed was that the Wallace fake wooden feet/foot clearly do NOT match the cast in that picture Diogenes showed. Why are you not questioning me on this? Where are your snappy comebacks refuting my assertions here? Do I detect that you actually agree with me that the Wallace fake feet do not match the cast in the picture? Do I detect that you can see for yourself on further examination that the Wallace fake feet are not what made that cast seen in the picture?


So don't for a second try and play it off like you don't think that that footprint wasn't made by a real foot.I haven't said anything other than the fact that I can clearly see it WASN'T made by the Wallace fakes in that picture.

Was it made by Alderfoot or Bigfoot? I can't say either way...I wasn't there...and neither were you.I don't have to have been there to refute the insinuation that the cast was obtained from the imprint made by the Wallace fake shown in the picture.

[carcharodon]

To my knowlege, Coleman is the only "bigfootologist" who claims to have found a match to a trackway and so stated in his latest book. Further investigation showed that trackway was not a match either. (I'm never wrong, Huntster. ;))

LAL,

Do you have a link to this online so I can examine for myself?

Wallace, I've read, made prints to show the tourists near a pond behind his souvenier shop in Toledo, Wash., years after Bluff Creek. The feet were prominently displayed on the wall; seems only the media thought they were a surprise.........Investigators were on to Wallace from the get-go. I'd say there's considerable doubt he fooled anyone wth faked tracks, except, perhaps, the tourists.

I know. Ridiculous wasn't it? What a field day the media had when this 'surprise' was unleashed. LOL.

[Correa Neto]

Before going ahead with the "science has ignored gorillas and giant squids for [insert no. of years here]", it would be wise to:

(1) Realize what is "science" actually is. Its a methodology, a tool. It will not and can not acknoweledge, accept, understand or know anything.
(2) Realize that its been around for a relatively small ammount of time. So, the argument will only make sense (if it actually does) within this time frame.
(3) Realize that science, as well as the world- changes with time. The technology, knoweledge and infrastructure avaliable to Linnaeus back in the 18th century can not be compared with what's avaliable nowdays. But we don't need to go so far back in time. Compare, say, a zoology expedition to Africa in 1905 with one from 1995. GPS, IR or low-light cams, notebooks, air transportation, cars, roads, satellite imagery, satellite phones, an enormous ammount of data aquired between both dates, etc.

The above item per se would be enough to show how flawed the "science has ignored gorillas and giant squids for [insert no. of years here]". To this, one might add the following:
(1) There are specimens and quality footage of gorillas and giant squids.
(2) The many hoaxes, mistakes and errors that were committed by accepting mythological beasts as real. Check Linnaeus entry on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolus_Linnaeus and you'll see an example of it. A warning: be carefull with the hook. Don't say I haven't warned.
(3) The original Kraken, if Wiki's entry is correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken, does not resemble a giant squid or octopus. An example of the myth twisting that some "experts" call "interpretation" and use to back cryptozoological and UFOlogical "research". Something I suspect also happens with bigfoot mythos and I am actually sure that happens with other humanoid cryptos.

[Beleth]

Evidence, please...........
Already given. Click on the link in my previous post.

Figure it out.


End of game.


Says who?

You?

You're "reasonable"?


Wow.

Frankly, you've left me speachless.

I guess if you've gotta' ask, you wouldn't understand the answer if I gave it to you.So you refuse to back up your statements. Very well.

As you say, "end of game." I'm sorry there's no consolation prize for you.

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:
My evaluation of the Bigfeetsus evidence is...that it's all second rate at best. Every important piece of evidence you have is weighed down with hoaxer involvement and inconlusiveness.

It has been proven that humans can duplicate compliant gaits,can fake mid-tarsal breaks and can emulate dermal ridges...so what is it again that you think you have Fuddster?

Bring forth some decent evidence already and I'll evaluate it ok.

It's been shown humans can duplicate a "compliant gait"....but has it been shown WHY the "guy in the suit" walked with a compliant gait in the first place??
Was there a precedent for that kind of walk by a supposed Bigfoot creature?

As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a picture of her cute little conehead...

[bjb]

The problem is that the picture is too blurry to make a conclusive photographic analysis. Remember the face on Mars?

http://www.skepdic.com/faceonmars.html

The first photographs showed a structure that looked like a giant face. Analysis showed that 'something' was there and in fact, the best analysis could not disprove there was a face. The later high-resolution pictures showed that the 'face' was actually a group of mountains that have been eroded by the strong, directional winds on Mars. Even so, there are still some people who reject the new pictures as fakes, and prefer to believe that there are cities on Mars built by ancient aliens.

It is useless to try and prove anything based on tiny details in that blurry film. It might be worth a try if the original film were available for analysis, but conveniently enough, it isn't. Using these blurry photos, you can prove anything, like the bigfoot is holding a baby or is sporting an erection:

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/

[bjb]

Mad Hom wrote:

It's been shown humans can duplicate a "compliant gait"....but has it been shown WHY the "guy in the suit" walked with a compliant gait in the first place??
Was there a precedent for that kind of walk by a supposed Bigfoot creature?

Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk? He's the one who claims to have been wearing the suit in the film and he was shown walking in the National Geographic show "Is It Real?". He's one of those people who walks in an ape-like manner, swinging his long arm with his knuckles pointing forward. After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.

[RayG]

After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.

Obvious? Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I'm a little more skeptical of any claims regarding this film.

RayG

[Huntster]

....After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.

Actually, if it was a guy in a suit, I'm sure it was Dale Heater.

What? You don't know Dale?

He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?

[bjb]

Obvious? Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, I'm a little more skeptical of any claims regarding this film.

RayG

Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk?

[Skeptical Greg]

----------------
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.

While you are at it, see if you can figure out why this Bigfoot has muscles shaped like donuts, a butt that is detached from the thigh, deltoids and pecs that don't follow the upper arm to the extent they should, breasts that don't really move like you would expect them to ( no bounce to speak of ) and hernia looking knots that just pop up out of nowhere ..

There has been a lot of discussion about the thigh hernia, but I just noticed these on the back of the thigh and calf ..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/hernia2.gif

The standard dismissal is: " Must be light and shadow .. "


See, it's like this ..

Resembles real muscle . = Must be real, and proof it's a real Bigfoot .

Looks unnatural, like no muscle shape seen on earth .. = Must be light and shadow...


The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0

[The Atheist]

The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0I like your thinking!

It even gets better when you add in a couple of other bits:

We know people create bigfoot hoaxes..

We know that some of the "footprints" have been made by hoaxers..

5- zip

Must be a lot more yet.....

Next!

[The Atheist]

As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.Gotcha!

I agree entirely - it just can't be a man in the suit, the head's completely wrong. Thanks to that, I believe that I've solved the puzzle of bigfoot and why he/she has never actually been seen in the meantime.

You're all looking the wrong place!











http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10377457331b83f483.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2937)

THIS is the guy in the suit! The forehead fits the suit perfectly.

Ya needs to look under water!

[RayG]

Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk?

Would it really truly matter? If he can produce the suit, then I'm on board, otherwise it's just speculation.

RayG

[bjb]

Would it really truly matter?

RayG

Yes, it would matter because then you would know what you were talking about. By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit.

I should add that Bob H's statements are not speculation because they are first-hand testimony. Whether or not Bob H is a credible witness can be the subject of speculation. He did pass the test, furthermore, he was willing to take the test, unlike certain other people connected with the film. Maybe he's lying, but which is more credible: Bob H. is a KGB spy-worthy liar and the film shows a real bigfoot, or he really was the guy in the suit?

As with every other fringe belief, any single clue that leads to the debunking of the film is waved away by the believers. But when all of these clues are put together, it becomes clear that the film is a hoax. There are way too many problems with the film and especially with the circumstances around it for it to be real. On the other hand, the believers try and point to small details that could suggest the film is valid. They look at the film and see babies and hard-ons, but they don't seem to notice the unrealistic motions of the body itself. Just like believers in Sylvia Browne, they remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'.

I advise anyone interested in bigfoot and crypto-zoology in general to learn about other lunatic fringe beliefs and see just how much they all have in common with each other. For example, the Cottingly Fairy hoax has all of the same elements, such as photographic proof examined by experts and proclaimed to be genuine. In the case of the fairies, the photographs were well-focused and original negatives were examined, and the experts were still fooled. But as with the bigfoot film, the 'other' photographs taken by the girls were never examined or even asked for. Out of a couple dozen attempts, only 4-5 pictures were presented as evidence. This hoax is very similar to the bigfoot film hoax because all of the photographic evidence (the entire original, unedited film) has never been seen. Anyway, learn about hoaxes in general and you'll learn to recognize one when you see it.

[RayG]

Yes, it would matter because then you would know what you were talking about.

You mean the way you know Bob H. is the guy in the suit based on his walk?

By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit. You put much faith in a machine that does not detect lies.

From http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/polygraph.html

The secret of the polygraph-the polygraphers' own shameless deception-is that their machine is no more capable of assessing truth telling than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep in chicken parts...dozens of studies over the past twenty years conducted in psychology departments and medical schools all over the world have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying.

The truth is this: The polygraph is a ruse, carefully constructed as a tool of intimidation, and used as an excuse to conduct an illegal inquisition under psychologically and physically unpleasant circumstances. Spies know how to beat it, and no court in the land permits submission of polygraphs, even to exonerate the accused.As with every other fringe belief, any single clue that leads to the debunking of the film is waved away by the believers. But when all of these clues are put together, it becomes clear that the film is a hoax. There are way too many problems with the film and especially with the circumstances around it for it to be real. On the other hand, the believers try and point to small details that could suggest the film is valid. They look at the film and see babies and hard-ons, but they don't seem to notice the unrealistic motions of the body itself. Just like believers in Sylvia Browne, they remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'.You seem to think I believe the film captured an actual bigfoot. Might you be mistaken in that assumption?

I advise anyone interested in bigfoot and crypto-zoology in general to learn about other lunatic fringe beliefs and see just how much they all have in common with each other. For example, the Cottingly Fairy hoax has all of the same elements, such as photographic proof examined by experts and proclaimed to be genuine. In the case of the fairies, the photographs were well-focused and original negatives were examined, and the experts were still fooled. But as with the bigfoot film, the 'other' photographs taken by the girls were never examined or even asked for. Out of a couple dozen attempts, only 4-5 pictures were presented as evidence. This hoax is very similar to the bigfoot film hoax because all of the photographic evidence (the entire original, unedited film) has never been seen. Anyway, learn about hoaxes in general and you'll learn to recognize one when you see it.I hope you're not implying I'm ignorant of those things which you mention. I have made numerous comparisons between bigfoot and crop cricles, UFOs, unicorns, etc. etc. You seem to be jumping to erroneous assumptions based on incomplete information.

It may well be your opinion that Bob H was wearing the suit that day, but the fact he walks in a similar manner doesn't prove it.

RayG

[Beleth]

He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?Do you seriously believe that that is an accurate representation of the scientific method?

Because when I read it, I recognize it as pretty much the opposite of logic and the scientific method.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?
Do you seriously believe that that is an accurate representation of the scientific method?.....[/QUOTE]

I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.

It certainly isn't a scientific answer for me.

[SweatyYeti]

bjb wrote:
The problem is that the picture is too blurry to make a conclusive photographic analysis. Remember the face on Mars?

The "it's too fuzzy" argument won't hold a drop of water in this analysis...because we're not dealing with details within the head, or face...just the outline of the head...in profile.
The blurring associated with that amounts to only a small fraction of the overall body height, and when the edge is sharpened, any measurement error of the size of the head is MINISCULE.

Here are two frames. The profile is the one I'm working with....I'm trying to draw a human head in there that's the proper size...but with no luck so far!

[carcharodon]

Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk? He's the one who claims to have been wearing the suit in the film and he was shown walking in the National Geographic show "Is It Real?". He's one of those people who walks in an ape-like manner, swinging his long arm with his knuckles pointing forward. After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.

Have you seen him walk like that in a padded bulky bigfoot suit?

[carcharodon]

As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.

Please post this when you are done. Look at the size of Baker's Harry head. Now that is something which would accomodate a human head with ease. Check out the difference in size between Baker's Harry head and what we can see in the P/G footage. Harry's head goes straight up and doesn't slope backwards.

[Beleth]

I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.A question mark preceded by a comma and the word "right" typically denotes either a sarcastic question or an implicit assumption by the questioner of an affirmative response. Sometimes both.

I wasn't sure in which vein you meant what you said, so I asked.

It certainly isn't a scientific answer for me.Okay then.

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

It's been shown humans can duplicate a "compliant gait"....but has it been shown WHY the "guy in the suit" walked with a compliant gait in the first place??
Was there a precedent for that kind of walk by a supposed Bigfoot creature?

As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.

Analysis?? Seems to me that what you have is a conclusion (That Patty's melon is un-human) and now your just trying to prove it.

Of course it looks good for Bigfeet...you want it to look that way.

[Mad Hom]

There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.

Do we ever actually see the foot you speak of making the prints? Oh and when I ask the question "Do we have the foot?" What I actually mean is....do we have an actual Bigfeet foot attatched to an actual Bigfeet that we have observed make a footprint?

Sorry Fuddster but a picture of a Bigfeet foot is only worth about one word...

Useless!

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:
Please post this when you are done. Look at the size of Baker's Harry head.

I sure will carcharodon...in a day or two!

Harry's head, and all the other hoax suits I've seen have that same feature...a tall vertical, human-looking forehead. Very much unlike Patty's head.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.

A question mark preceded by a comma and the word "right" typically denotes either a sarcastic question or an implicit assumption by the questioner of an affirmative response. Sometimes both.

So that means I don't need to expect an answer, right?

I wasn't sure in which vein you meant what you said, so I asked.

Now I don't know either.

Why don't you tell me?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.
Do we ever actually see the foot you speak of making the prints?

Been there with that lame and desperate line of questioning, counselor.

Oh and when I ask the question "Do we have the foot?" What I actually mean is....do we have an actual Bigfeet foot attatched to an actual Bigfeet that we have observed make a footprint?

That's not what you asked: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=2138930&postcount=173)

You don't have a picture of the the foot that (allegedly) made all these silly prints so what's your point?

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:
Analysis?? Seems to me that what you have is a conclusion (That Patty's melon is un-human) and now your just trying to prove it.


Actually...I said...
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot

That's not a "conclusion" yet. I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

Here's a quote from Mike Klein, posted on another forum today...interestingly enough....

The complete absence of a forehead on the Bigfoot is the most convincing fact in favor of its authenticity. It simply is not possible to fit a human skull inside that head without setting that head in the rear half ... with his eyes half a foot [??] back from the eye holes and then turn to the camera .... The revealing frame is frame 339, a true side profile of Patty's head.

[LAL]

Thanks for another generous helping of Spam Lu..

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

"The Definition of Spam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").

Unsolicited means that the Recipient has not granted verifiable permission for the message to be sent. Bulk means that the message is sent as part of a larger collection of messages, all having substantively identical content.

A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk.


- Unsolicited Email is normal email
(examples: first contact enquiries, job enquiries, sales enquiries)


- Bulk Email is normal email
(examples: subscriber newsletters, customer communications, discussion lists)




Technical Definition of Spam

An electronic message is "spam" IF:

(1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients;

AND


(2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent.


Spam is an issue about consent, not content. Whether the UBE message is an advert, a scam, porn, a begging letter or an offer of a free lunch, the content is irrelevant - if the message was sent unsolicited and in bulk then the message is spam.

Spam is not a sub-set of UBE, it is not "UBE that is also a scam or that doesn't contain an unsubscribe link", all email sent unsolicited and in bulk is Spam.

This distinction is important because legislators spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to regulate the content of spam messages, and in doing so come up against free speech issues, without realizing that the spam issue is solely about the delivery method.


Important facts relating to this definition:

(1) The sending of Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE") is banned by all Internet service providers worldwide.

(2) Spamhaus' anti-spam blocklist, the SBL, used by more than 650 Million Internet users to reject emails identified as spam, is based on the internationally-accepted definition of Spam as "Unsolicited Bulk Email". Therefore anyone sending UBE on the Internet, regardless of whether the content is commercial or not, illegal or not, needs to be fully aware that (A) they will lose their Internet access if they send UBE and (B) they will be placed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) if they send UBE.


Various jurisdictions have implemented legislation to control what they call "spam". One particular example is US S.877 (CANSPAM 2004). Each law addresses "spam" in different ways, and as a consequence, often has different definitions of what they cover, whether they call it "spam" or not. Spamhaus uses the industry standard "unsolicited bulk email" definition which underlines "it's not about content, it's about consent". As such, arguments as to whether UBE messages are covered under CANSPAM or are compliant with CANSPAM, are entirely irrelevant."

http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html

[LAL]

Chris Murphy mentioned one of the Russian scientists noted a detail on the filmed foot that matched a detail in a cast, confirming that was the foot that made the print.

[LAL]

By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit.

He refused to take a test to be administered by someone of a researcher's choosing.

Roger Patterson also took as lie detector test. And passed.

[LAL]

While you are at it, see if you can figure out why this Bigfoot has muscles shaped like donuts, a butt that is detached from the thigh, deltoids and pecs that don't follow the upper arm to the extent they should, breasts that don't really move like you would expect them to ( no bounce to speak of ) and hernia looking knots that just pop up out of nowhere ..

There has been a lot of discussion about the thigh hernia, but I just noticed these on the back of the thigh and calf ..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/hernia2.gif

The standard dismissal is: " Must be light and shadow .. "


See, it's like this ..

Resembles real muscle . = Must be real, and proof it's a real Bigfoot .

Looks unnatural, like no muscle shape seen on earth .. = Must be light and shadow...


The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0

And all your points were thoroughly shot down on BFF, with pictures. Why not post the links?

Sasquatch = 3
SG= 0

[LAL]

I like your thinking!

It even gets better when you add in a couple of other bits:

We know people create bigfoot hoaxes..

We know that some of the "footprints" have been made by hoaxers..

5- zip

Must be a lot more yet.....

Next!

And we also know the media did a lot of reporting and very little research. The few hoaxes there have been have been transparent and quickly exposed.

This is Green on the Wallace family fiasco:

"John Green on Ray Wallace

This article was originally presented at the 2003 International Bigfoot Symposium by John Green. This is the final part of the presentation. Posted with John Green’s written consent.

<links snipped>

I have said that the events at Bluff Creek in the 1950s and 60s can best be dealt with at the panel discussion tomorrow, but there is one aspect that very much involves the present, and perhaps I can dispose of it now.

I am referring to the claim made last year by his family that the late Ray Wallace the contractor on the road construction job where the first “Bigfoot” track was cast, made those footprints by walking around wearing a pair of wooden feet.

Had the first newspaper to carry the story behaved responsibly, and asked the Wallaces to demonstrate that they could duplicate those tracks with the wooden feet that they displayed as proof, that story would never have been printed. Instead it was treated as revealed truth, and it was republished and broadcast all over the world, with some wonderful embellishments.

One newspaper quoted a Wallace nephew saying that Ray had sent younger members of the clan out to make all of the big tracks that have been reported all over the continent. Others took a mention of Ray making movies of his wife in a fur suit and twisted it to include the Patterson movie.

Even the newspaper in Eureka, which had printed the original stories that introduced “Bigfoot” to the world, got on the bandwagon with a yarn about how the publisher at the time had known all along it was a Ray Wallace hoax.

It was a totally irresponsible performance by the media, and frankly a lot of people involved in Bigfoot research weren’t any better. Their reaction might be summed up as: “Okay, Ray Wallace faked the Bluff Creek tracks but we have other tracks that are genuine.”

They didn’t bother to find out, any more than the media did, whether the Wallace claims were true, and seemed perfectly willing to discard as evidence tracks that are the most thoroughly investigated and best authenticated of any that have ever been found.

The current Wallaces actually don’t show any sign of knowing much about the Bluff Creek tracks and may even believe that what they are saying is true, although one of them told Rick Noll that his father never actually said he had faked the tracks, they just grew up knowing he had.

The wooden feet that they showed the media, as you can see in the full-size photos of them on display here, do not match the original “Bigfoot”. They do appear to be attempts to duplicate the casts made by Bob Titmus of the different set of tracks he found on a Bluff Creek sandbar, but one of them is so crudely carved that they would not likely fool anybody.

I expect those feet were just made to see whether tracks could be faked with them, something that probably, like myself, some of you have also tried. The answer, of course, is that you can make passable tracks in flat ground if it is soft enough, but in firm materials or up and down slopes, forget it.

Some of the original tracks were in very firm materials, and some went up and down steep slopes. This museum has had an offer in circulation for several months now of $100,000 for anyone who can show how they could have been faked.

So far there is no sign that any Wallace cares to try for the money, but perhaps they haven’t heard of it. The same editors that swallowed whole their nonsensical story refused to believe a real one. Priding themselves, I suppose, on not falling for a publicity stunt, they gave the $100,000 offer no publicity at all.

Granted that the $100,000 was put up in an attempt to get publicity, since all other attempts to get the media to counteract the damage they had done had failed, but it is a genuine offer. The first person who can demonstrate how the Bluff Creek tracks could have been faked will be paid $100,000. Tomorrow, you when you hear the people who were involved at the time describe what they observed; I think you will agree that there is no cause for concern that the money will ever be claimed.

What is the story about Ray Wallace? I never met him, because he was never around Willow Creek the times I was here, but I was told early on about his reputation as a practical joker, and in later years I got occasional letters and phone calls from him.

According to newspaper stories he was pretty upset in 1958 about people suggesting he had faked the tracks, pointing out, undoubtedly correctly, that the whole thing was interfering with his contract and costing him money.

It wasn’t long, though, until he began to try to get in on the action, telling outlandish tales about his adventures with Bigfoot. He even tried to sell Tom Slick a movie of Bigfoot he that claimed to have taken. I wasn’t there, but I was told that Ray asked for $10,000 and wouldn’t show Tom the film until he had the money.

We had learned by then that Tom could be very gullible at times, but that wasn’t one of the times, so we never knew what would have happened if he had agreed to pay.

We thought then that it was an attempted swindle, but having learned more of Ray’s reputation from people who knew him well and admired him I feel sure now that it would have turned out to be just one of his pranks.

A while later, after he had returned to the area in Washington where he came from, Ray got involved in selling very odd looking footprint casts, supposedly from the Mount Saint Helen’s apes. I never heard that he had casts from Bluff Creek, and I’m sure he never claimed publicly that he had faked the tracks there; because he would certainly have been called on to prove it.

To give you something of the flavor of the man, I’ll quote a couple of passages from of his letters.

In 1961 he wrote to the Klam-ity Kourier, here in Willow Creek, as follows:

Big foot used to be very tame, as I have seen him almost every morning on my way to work… I would sit in my pickup and toss apples out of the window to him. He never did catch an apple but he sure tried. Then as he ate the apples I would have my movie camera clipping off more footage of him… I have talked to several movie companies about selling my movies which would last for three hours. The best offer I’ve had so far is $250,000.

A letter to me in April 1979, included the following:

… everyone says who has heard Big Foots screams in northern California, before all the Big Foots were killed and hauled down the Klamath River in a tug boat and out into the ocean 12 miles to where there was a small ship anchored in international waters and frozen into a block of ice and then transported to Hong Kong and sold, so now there aren’t any more left in northern California, or is there if they are being let out of flying saucers.

Everything Ray did was so transparently bogus that it seemed obvious he was just having fun. It is hard to imagine he expected his yarns to be believed, and although some writers back East swallowed the bait I don’t know of anyone involved in the sasquatch search in the West who took him seriously or felt that he was causing any sort of problem.

Ironically, he didn’t fool people on a grand scale until he wasn’t around to enjoy the joke, and unfortunately when it did happen it did real harm.

We will never know the full extent to which people or projects that could have made valuable contributions in this field have turned away or been turned down because the media fell for this silly story, but we do know of enough examples to establish that the effect will be substantial and long-lasting. Sasquatch hunting, however, has always been three steps forward, two steps back, so we will just take our lumps and carry on, undeterred.

In that vein I would like to close with one of my favorite memories from the days when Rene Dahinden and I were pioneers in this strange pursuit. We had been on a radio phone-in show for a couple of hours, back in 1963, when a man called in and said something like this:

“Don’t you idiots realize that there are two hundred million people in North America and you are the only two who take this stuff seriously.”

I don’t remember the caller’s exact words, but Rene’s reply still rings in my ears:

“Mister, there are two hundred and twenty million people in North America, and every bloody one of them is wrong!”

There may be an extra hundred million of them today, but there are also a lot more of us, and we are making real headway—so carry on.


I thought that I would sum up this piece by John with a quote from him:

"I will almost certainly die without it being solved, as has happened to so many of my friends. But I don’t regret the time I spent on it." - John Green"

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/john-green-on-ray-wallace/

[Beleth]

So that means I don't need to expect an answer, right?What you expect or not expect is not for me to decide. You should have your expectations set in advance of asking the question.

Now I don't know either.

Why don't you tell me?If you don't know why you asked a question, there is nothing I, being neither a psychologist nor a mind reader, can do to help you.

[Beleth]

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

"The Definition of Spam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word "Spam" as applied to Email means ...(emphasis mine)

But since we are not talking about e-mail, this definition is moot.

Spam as applied to this forum is something entirely different, and is covered by Rule 6 of the Registration Agreement which you agreed to when you joined this forum.

[SweatyYeti]

bjb wrote:
Remember the face on Mars?


Seen the square remains on Mars?

[RayG]

If it's too much for you to read, you can always ignore it. Are you afraid you'll learn something?

That's not the point. In addition to consuming far more bandwidth than is necessary, it's considered bad Netiquette (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855) to quote the entire text of something when the relevant portion will suffice. (Kinda like reciting an entire chapter from a book when a single sentence or paragraph would have been enough.)

As indicated here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam), "Users that post repeated, unnecessary messages, often for the sake of humor, are considered spammers."

This site (http://www.learnthenet.com/English/html/09netiqt.htm) points out:

Keep your communications to the point. Few people like reading text on a computer screen. Also some people still pay for Internet access by the hour. The longer it takes to read your messages, the more it costs them. This is true whether you send e-mail or post messages to a newsgroup or a mailing list.

When reading line after line of your quoted text, it's sometimes hard to tell exactly what your point is.


The word "Spam" as applied to Email means Unsolicited Bulk Email ("UBE").There's the problem with your definition, this is a message forum, not email.

RayG

[Skeptical Greg]

And all your points were thoroughly shot down on BFF, with pictures. Why not post the links?

Sasquatch = 3
SG= 0

I have linked to my discussions often, but just in case..

Posts by Skeptical Greg at BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=4491b1a97e1707ab605ba067d89e0e89&search_in=posts&result_type=posts)

Topics Started by Skeptical Greg at BFF (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=1ec795dc70855e44fd99d1f85f7a90e7&search_in=topics&result_type=topics)



Shot down ?

Well, if " must be light and shadow " = " shot down " ..

Then I am surely busted ..


I've made a mistake or two, and have never had a problem admitting it ..

Unlike some other people, who are so clueless to begin with and have no idea
they have made a mistake, no matter how much their face is rubbed in it..

On the other hand, people who have little to offer besides the ramblings of others, don't run the risk of making their own mistakes; they can just finger their source as the problem...


Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?

[William Parcher]

Posts by Skeptical Greg at BFF

Topics Started by Skeptical Greg at BFF

Endless blah-blah-blah posted by Skeptical Greg at BFF that will never cause a Bigfoot believer to stop believing, nor cause a skeptic to doubt more than they already do.

[LAL]

There's the problem with your definition, this is a message forum, not email.

RayG

I've given the definition(s) of spam to Greg many times. By no definition is quoting blocks of text "spamming". For whatever good it will do, I wanted to include all the definitions. I suppose posting a definition of "spam" is "spam" by his definition too.

There's an Ignore feature on this board. Anyone not wanting to read what I have to say, or the considered opinions of those I quote, are free to use it. Or they can do what I do when I see long, repetitive, ill-informed posts, with or without caps- move on to the next.

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Actually...I said...


That's not a "conclusion" yet. I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

Here's a quote from Mike Klein, posted on another forum today...interestingly enough....

Yeti Sweater!?!? You don't get it do ya? I'm saying your conclusion is already drawn in your head...you want Patty's melon to be unhuman...now you just have draw a head in the outline of her coneheaded skull that fit's your predetermined Bigfoot Apologist conclusion. By saying it's looking good for Bigfeet you reveal your Pro-Bigfeet slant going into the process. Your analysis therefore means .........not much.

[LAL]

I have linked to my discussions often, but just in Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?


We can't talk about that because I did not accuse you of doctoring images. That's the spin you put on it. I was going to add a few WTFs to the post, but thought better of it. I don't need a warning on the BFF.

I was taken aback because I thought you were going to bring up the finger. I was somewhat at a loss for words on this one; it was so absurd, it floored me. I didn't see lines on my captures because they weren't there. I wasn't able to check the main body of LMS until I was able to view it and Step Forward all the way through the section. No, I'd never noticed lines flicking by on one frame (two steps on the DVD) while watching LMS.

I don't know much about photography, which is why I started a thread. DDA does. He was a professional, he knows Green personally, he said the lines are scratches and stated how they occurred. A former projectionist said essentially the same thing. Yet you still claim someone drew on a 1.66mm figure. There's no point in arguing with you.

As to calling you a liar, no I did not. However, I demonstrated it on the Brian Smith thing.

You can be pretty indimidating with your pseudo intellectualism, but I saw through you months ago. All your cherry picking has amounted to nothing but a pile of cherries, IMO.

I apologized for thinking you were a kid still living with his parents because of your immature way of posting (assuming that's not the case) and that's the only apology you'll get from me.

You may now go back to calling me "obtuse".

[LAL]

(emphasis mine)

But since we are not talking about e-mail, this definition is moot.

Spam as applied to this forum is something entirely different, and is covered by Rule 6 of the Registration Agreement which you agreed to when you joined this forum.

Rule 6 states "You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum."

Spamming a forum means posting the same message on a thread multiple times or on several threads on the same forum. Some forums have a rule about how many times that can be.

Since I have never done this, I am not guilty of breaking rule 6.

[carcharodon]

Why don't we talk about you accusing me of doctoring images, just because you don't have a clue about film, video or any of the science behind what you are looking at ?

Why should we talk about something that didn't occur? I have been to the threads in question on BFF and LAL did not accuse you of doctoring images anywhere.

[LAL]

Yeti Sweater!?!? You don't get it do ya? I'm saying your conclusion is already drawn in your head...you want Patty's melon to be unhuman...now you just have draw a head in the outline of her coneheaded skull that fit's your predetermined Bigfoot Apologist conclusion. By saying it's looking good for Bigfeet you reveal your Pro-Bigfeet slant going into the process. Your analysis therefore means .........not much.


A human skull does not fit into the head. There's too much slope to the forehead.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=21883

Gif by soarwing. Discussion here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16736&view=findpost&p=357370

Your lack of analysis therefore means .........not much.

[LTC8K6]

I'm sorry Lu, but I've seen plenty of human heads fit into the head of a gorilla costume, so I have difficuty believing one won't fit into the head of a bigfoot costume.

[LTC8K6]

Also, Patty's head is turned, isn't it?

Sometimes the costume head doesn't turn in synch with the actor's head, particularly near the end of it's travel.

[Correa Neto]

Oh, amazing!

If it weren't for one pesky issue:

Anyone can resize a image of a skull and paste it over Patty to make it fit or not.

[LAL]

Why should we talk about something that didn't occur? I have been to the threads in question on BFF and LAL did not accuse you of doctoring images anywhere.

Thank you, carky, old boy.

It's amazing how upset Greg got. I must've stuck a nerve.

[LAL]

That's not the point. In addition to consuming far more bandwidth than is necessary, it's considered bad Netiquette (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855) to quote the entire text of something when the relevant portion will suffice. (Kinda like reciting an entire chapter from a book when a single sentence or paragraph would have been enough.)

And who's to determine what's relevant? I've done a lot of snipping, only to be accused of editing out parts that didn't suit my POV. It's a no-win situation, isn't it?

This thread's been bumped and I'm not going to post three pages of it, but I hope it will be read:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13157&st=0

[LAL]

I'm sorry Lu, but I've seen plenty of human heads fit into the head of a gorilla costume, so I have difficuty believing one won't fit into the head of a bigfoot costume.

This is Bob Heironimus in a suit built by Morris for a reecreation.

Note the size of the head, and the shoulders. And the rest of it while you're at it.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1979-1163948489.jpg

[LTC8K6]

I note that I can superimpose a human skull on the costume that won't fit in that costume, and make it blink on and off as if it was significant.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thank you, carky, old boy.

It's amazing how upset Greg got. I must've stuck a nerve.



It wasn't a question of me being upset..

It was a question of you calling me a liar and getting a pass by the peanut gallery ..



Don't flatter yourself ..

I'm not mad.. I'm LMAO ..

Before you found the lines, you assumed I put them there, and all but stated as much...


After you found the lines, you changed your story from:


" I don't see any lines.. ( so you must have drawn them ) "

to: " What are the lines, drawn or scratches ? "


Like I said at BFF, your waffling is so transparent it is laughable ..

It just doesn't get any play with the home team .
_____________________________________________


Have you addressed the question of the ' zoomed ' copy of the PGF being used in LMS without being identified as such.

It makes Patty look more bulky than she does in other copies of the film.
I'm preparing to point this out over there amongst all the clamour about
the inhuman proportions of Patty..

Doesn't that make it just as tainted as Dfoot's photoshopped images..


Surely no one deliberately changed the aspect ratio of that copy just
to make Patty look bulkier ....:eye-poppi

[Skeptical Greg]

This is Bob Heironimus in a suit built by Morris for a reecreation.

Note the size of the head, and the shoulders. And the rest of it while you're at it.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1979-1163948489.jpg

When are you going to start posting images from a copy of the PGF that has an accurate aspect ratio ?

P.S.

No one here is hanging their hat on the " Heironimus was the man in the suit .. " hook..

That evidence is tainted, and of no use.. Mr. Knights is just preaching to the choir on that one..



Doesn't mean Patty is a real Bigfoot , though ...

[Skeptical Greg]

Why should we talk about something that didn't occur? I have been to the threads in question on BFF and LAL did not accuse you of doctoring images anywhere.

We ?

Got a mouse in your pocket ?