Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Skeptical Greg]

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

Then we are dealing with large variances I suppose..

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

Just one of those persistant perplexities..


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

 

[LAL]

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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


Sounds like he has no love for the BFF.

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

See this?

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

From that same thread.

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

RayG

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

What would happen if MM resigned?

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

 

[LAL]

Then we are dealing with large variances I suppose..

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

Just one of those persistant perplexities..


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

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

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

 

[bruto]

Until science takes over, ....

You said it!

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fur was from an animal long dead.

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

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

It might be your interpretation.

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

"Habitat

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went to jail for failing to pay the rent.

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

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


"How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming
By Roger Knights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Claim to have done so anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

The latest Class ' A ' report at BFRO

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


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

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

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

 

[Thurkon]

"How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming
By Roger Knights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Claim to have done so anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAL,

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

Whaaa?

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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

Meldrum said;



" typical Bigfoot toes are as long as my fingers "

We have no evidence to support it ...

Bad science. Not a credible source..

We should question anything he says...

 

[LAL]

LAL, for a Bigfoot aficionado, this last post was riddled with inaccuracies.

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

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

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

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

Have you seen what Morris was producing in those days?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He couldn't tell 5 miles from 20?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

LAL,

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

Whaaa?

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

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

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

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

"Leg Length

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

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

Edge Detection

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

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

Please read Glickman.

 

[Thurkon]

Edge Detection

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

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

Please read Glickman.

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

Apparently not, if you are a believer...

 

[Thurkon]

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

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

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

 

[RayG]

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

Offensive? I thought you said he sounded reasonable.

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

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

See this?

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

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

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

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

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

What would happen if MM resigned?

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

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

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

An interesting summation of a BFRO expedition can be found here:
http://thedaily.washington.edu/all....eyField=__Record_ID__&-keyValue=13039&-search

The author sums up the experience thus:

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

RayG

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RayG

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