Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Thurkon]

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

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

Here’s a good link debunking the film:

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

And another:

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

…with this quote:

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Hitch]

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


Ummm. Isn't that poor horse dead?

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

 

[LAL]

Did Gimlin really say he could have been hoaxed?

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

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

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

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

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



Letters sent to BBC Wildlife magazine concerning the Packham Investigation"


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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

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

 

[Thurkon]

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

LAL,

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

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

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thurkon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thurkon]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

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

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

 

[Thurkon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cleon]

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

 

[bruto]

LAL,

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

 

[LAL]

LAL,

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

Did you read the article?

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noll brought up some good points:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

 

[William Parcher]

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

Ditto.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LAL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

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


Pros
1. Eyewitness testimony from apparently sincere people

2. two or three film cllips of possible creature

3. Large footprints found

4. Native legends


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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