Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

The original PGF is 'missing' because modern skeptical scrutiny would eat it alive for lunch. The film is a hoax of a guy in a Bigfoot costume.

Besides what you see in the clips and images, there is a ridiculous set of circumstances surrounding the filming itself. Patterson and Gimlin contradict each other in various ways in subsequent interviews and published stories about the events of the filming. There is an unreconcilibly short length of time between the filming and when the film was processed and then viewed for the first time. In October 1967, Patterson supposidly filmed this thing on a Friday afternoon and brought the undeveloped film into town late on that night. It was said to have been flown to Seattle (from northern California) for development. Patterson and others were viewing the developed film on Sunday morning. That is only about 35 or so hours later, and it includes a round-trip flight of the film to Seattle. Bullcrap!

Patterson did not film a Bigfoot. He created a circa-1967 film scam. Bob Gimlin knows it, because he was part of it.

The whole Bigfoot following reeks of myth perpetuation. Gimlin must be overjoyed that 'experts' are declaring the costume flaws as hernias. He can still pretend that it was all the real deal, even more now than ever before because of the Internet communication situation. He might even take this hoax to his grave. He is in way too deep to turn around and claim guilt now.

Sorry that this thread has more about the PGF than the other JREF PGF thread does.

From all reports, Gimlin is too nice a guy to sue people for slander and/or libel, but I wish he would. And I hope you have a lot of money.

De Atley said he thought he would have chartered a plane and knew how long the flight was (9hrs.). Gimlin remembered going to the airport and the place that processed it may have been identified. DeAtley had some memory lapses about the events in his interview with Long.

The contradictions were over things like whether Roger's horse fell on him. If the two agreed on every detail, that would be suspicious. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous experiment where an unexpected event is staged for college students and all agree on practically nothing.

I'm not so sure the original is missing. Most of the second reel was never returned, but the reel with the animal may be "someplace safe". I doubt examination of the original today would show tampering any more than the first examinations did. The original was shown so much it was getting damaged.

Why wouldn't Gimlin take his story to the grave? Patterson did. Could be because it's the truth.

 

[LTC8K6]

Dr. Osman Hill, Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, confirmed that the creature in the film must be hominid- manlike- rather than pongid - apelike. He went on to say that this opinion does not eliminate the chance of a masquerade, but added that if such was the case, it was extremely well done.

I guess that is supposed to be an example of saying the P/G film is authentic.

The doctor actually says it looks like a man, he can't rule out a hoax, and if it was a hoax, it was a good one.

Nearly exactly what I would say.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the film as authentic.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

 

[LAL]

Are you aware that Bourne observed there was nothing about the gait of the subject in the PGF that distinguished it from a human, and that Kranz agreed ?

Krantz agreed the compliant gait can be achieved by a human (a la Groucho Marx) but noted it would be difficult to maintain for any length of time. Further research has revealed some peculiarities that show the gait is decidedly not human..

 

[LTC8K6]

The fourth analysis of the film was made by Geoffrey Bourne, Director, Yerkes Regional Primate Center, Emory University, Atlanta. As a portion of the hour long "MONSTERS! Mysteries or Myths?" (..directed by Robert Guenette) produced by Wolper Productions in association with the Smithsonian Institution, it was broadcast on network television the evening of November 25, 1974, and reportedly viewed by 30,000,000 North Americans. Bourne informed me by telephone that he had viewed the Patterson-Gimlin film several years earlier. He said the request by Wolper that he analyze the film, his second viewing of it, and the recording of his conclusions all took place in the space of a few days. The following is a transcript of his statement as provided by the Smithsonian Institution:

Well, you know, that looks to me very much like a human walk. Its gait is very much of a human type gait and also when you look at its feet as it walks, the under surface is much too light-colored for an animal with this kind of dark fur. And furthermore, it seems to have the characteristics of both male and female---the head has a big crest on it like a male gorilla does--and this crest is called a sagittal crest. Now, this creature also has pendulous breasts which is a female characteristic and the breasts are covered with fur and in all other primates the breasts are actually either bare or very sparsely haired. So for these reasons alone, I would have very grave doubts about the authenticity of this particular animal.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/strasenburgh.htm

 

[LAL]

I guess that is supposed to be an example of saying the P/G film is authentic.

The doctor actually says it looks like a man, he can't rule out a hoax, and if it was a hoax, it was a good one.

Nearly exactly what I would say.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the film as authentic.

The language of science is cautious.

 

[LTC8K6]

The language of science is cautious.

Was the P/G film authenticated by Yerkes primatologists, or is this just another lie that is uncovered when digging into the bigfoot story?

As far as I can tell, it has to be a lie because it is not possible for any primatologist to authenticate the P/G film.

Now I am even beginning to think that Chilcutt is entirely mistaken about seeing dermal ridges on any bigfoot cast.

After a lot of looking, I no longer think there are any dermal ridges on any bigfoot casts, and Chilcutt is seeing what he needs to see.

 

[Thurkon]

Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake. Daegling's about the only one who's bothered to write a book on the phenomenon, and he took Cliff Crook's opinion on the Skookum Cast.

Napier, Grieve, Daegling and Schmitt are all qualified scientists who have problems with the film after their detailed analysis. They believe it’s a fake. That’s as close as it gets. You cannot “show” it’s a fake even if Patterson’s widow produces a costume and Roger’s detailed diary of how he did it…some Bigfoot believers will still insist it’s real. How do you argue reason with that?

Anyway, you know the drill. Bigfoot is an extraordinary claim, and as such the burden of proof is on the claimant. Until sufficient evidence of a Bigfoot is produced, most will remain doubtful…regardless of a bad film from 1967.

Bigfoot researchers need to have access to these admitted hoaxers and the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available. From reading the book, I can pretty much tell that the author has only been able to view the P/G film on video (which skips frames in the process of converting the film to video, odd/even…blah, blah, bleh…

Best evidence available? Would that be blurry video, footprints, and the cast of a butt? Yeah…we better get busy and add Homo Sasquatchus into the scientific catalog. I mean…it’s not as if we actually have to see a live animal to be convinced of it’s existence.

Daegling's dismissal of Jimmy Chilcutt's dermal ridge findings as "irrelevant" is simply astounding.

Why? What did he say about it?

Additionally, Daegling correctly maintains that the Groucho Marx/Bigfoot walk could be mimicked by a human, but he fails to answer the question of why a guy in a suit would do such a thing. It's a clearly difficult and unnatural movement to attempt, so why would an alleged prankster feel compelled to try it?

Uhhh…to fool you into thinking he’s a big monkey? You know, the way actors in gorilla suits walk kinda funny?

 

[LAL]

Is this the source? It's customary to post it so people can read the rest.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/strasenburgh.htm

Re sagittal crests:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/daruc/ycranium.htm

It's been noted the sagittal crest seems to be a factor of size, and the Sasquatch is the only primate where the females get that big.

 

[bruto]

Which primatologists?

I am at a real loss here.

How could primatologists possibly pronounce such a film authentic?

The very idea that they would make such a pronouncement really bothers me.

An authentic what? What's authentic about it?

Without an actual sasquatch to compare with, I am mystified as to what could be pronounced authentic about the P/G film by primatologists.

If we have a possible film of a bengal tiger strolling through a back yard in Paducah, we can ask experts on tigers if it is indeed a genuine film of a bengal tiger strolling through someone's back yard. The experts can then certainly say it's an authentic film of a bengal tiger.

I don't see how this can be done with the P/G film.

It's authentically a 16mm film shot in Bluff Creek around 1967, I guess.

I guess it's also an authentic primate. As are we.

 

[Thurkon]

The contradictions were over things like whether Roger's horse fell on him. If the two agreed on every detail, that would be suspicious. I'm sure you're familiar with the famous experiment where an unexpected event is staged for college students and all agree on practically nothing.

Yet, if Bob H. has any minor inconsistencies in his story like the length of the drive to Bluff Creek, he’s lying!

I’m glad you’re consistent.

 

[Thurkon]

Krantz agreed the compliant gait can be achieved by a human (a la Groucho Marx) but noted it would be difficult to maintain for any length of time.

How about sixty seconds?

Further research has revealed some peculiarities that show the gait is decidedly not human..

What research? By whom?

 

[Thurkon]

Was the P/G film authenticated by Yerkes primatologists, or is this just another lie that is uncovered when digging into the bigfoot story?

This is a huge problem with Bigfoot research, and Bigfoot websites in general. If they want to do honest research, then let them. Go to town. But keep it honest. Distorting the truth does nothing to further true scientific research.

The BFRO website is particularly guilty of this, and I suspect this is in large part a way to keep Moneymaker’s Bigfoot rodeo round-ups in full lucrative swing. Another problem is…I notice a good deal of dubious website content, like BFRO’s, is simply cut and pasted from one Bigfoot site to another without any fact checking whatsoever.

 

[LAL]

Napier, Grieve, Daegling and Schmitt are all qualified scientists who have problems with the film after their detailed analysis. They believe it’s a fake. That’s as close as it gets. You cannot “show” it’s a fake even if Patterson’s widow produces a costume and Roger’s detailed diary of how he did it…some Bigfoot believers will still insist it’s real. How do you argue reason with that?

I don't know anyone who reasons that way, so I can't comment. You'd think if Mrs. Patterson had such a suit she'd have jumped on the moneymaking bandwagon with Heironimus and the Wallace clan. The film was tied up in copyright problems for years; she'd have probably made more money with a suit. But in 38 years no such suit has surfaced, let alone a diary.

This is what Grieve said in his conclusion:

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

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


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


I'd have to read Napier again on the film, but he was convinced the creatures exist. His "problems" had to do with the stride. Daegling and Schmitt make much of possible mismeasurement, but this doesn't prove a hoax. I've already posted Noll on that.

>snip<

Why? What did he say about it?

He implied the dermal ridges could have been faked and that the similarities could be accounted for by hoaxers communicating by long distance phone. That was one of the places I had to put the book down.

There's a very detailed review by Judaculla on BFF. I'll post the link in another reply. Sometimes when I bring up that site I loose my whole post.

 

[LAL]

I have downloaded patty3.mov and watched it several times now.

I don't see anything different from a human walking. I see locked knees at every step.

Can anyone direct me to a clip that contains this image (frame72)? It does not appear to be in patty3.mov.

Why don't you try the library for LMS instead of relying on clips?

The knee looks bent on frame 72 as well.

 

[William Parcher]

Name me a scientist who has done a detailed analysis of the PGF who has shown it's a fake.

Name me a scientist who has access to the original film in order to give such analysis.

From Noll's review of the book:

"Counter-arguments to his work are going to have to address some interesting items. The author is claiming that most of the evidence is easily attributable to hoaxing of some type; he even identifies the possible people involved. But I don't think he knows that advocates of the creature's existence have tried to get more quantitative information from these individuals. I personally have contacted the Wallace family so as to come to their home and document all the evidence of their father's fake track making so we could take out stuff he may have fabricated, only to be turned away because of a movie deal. Others have asked for data surrounding Bob Herionomus such as stride length, pictures of him inside a costume and arm/leg lengths... alas, another movie or TV deal going on there as well. It seems that the admitted hoaxers only want to associate themselves and cherished work with the skeptical side. I guess it would seem that they would believe them more then people who go looking for the giant hairy monster.

Without direct access to the primary evidence the skeptics cannot build a stronger case. The PGF is missing, so nobody can discover if it had been spliced by Patterson. Nor can they examine what would be the most detailed images (moving and still) coming from the Kodak film itself that ran through Patterson's camera. We can't know if there was more than one take during the hoax filming. Maybe the guy tripped on a stick or had a few moves that looked too fakey. Patterson could easily splice the film so that it only showed the best parts. Without the film itself (and this would include the entire roll) nobody can learn if it had been manipulated.

Why does Noll make these statements when he himself is said to refuse to allow Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer - CSICOP) to examine the Skookum Cast?

 

[LAL]

Come again..


Everything is missing, except a cfew seconds of two reels of film ...

Why should we believe that we are seeing everything that is relevant ?

I certainly understand that you don't want to see anything to disturb your POV...

Same to you, fella.

The part of the second roll wasn't returned but not before it was shown, but all it was was scenery. If you were expecting to find Bob Heironimus disrobing, you would have been sadly disappointed.

 

[LAL]

Name me a scientist who has access to the original film in order to give such analysis.

Without direct access to the primary evidence the skeptics cannot build a stronger case. The PGF is missing, so nobody can discover if it had been spliced by Patterson. Nor can they examine what would be the most detailed images (moving and still) coming from the Kodak film itself that ran through Patterson's camera. We can't know if there was more than one take during the hoax filming. Maybe the guy tripped on a stick or had a few moves that looked too fakey. Patterson could easily splice the film so that it only showed the best parts. Without the film itself (and this would include the entire roll) nobody can learn if it had been manipulated.

Why does Noll make these statements when he himself is said to refuse to allow Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer - CSICOP) to examine the Skookum Cast?

This is discussed on BFF. How about you guys do your own Googling for awhile? I have other things to look up. Radford can see it with the rest of the public.

The film was examined at the time and found not to be tampered with. I can't give you names without doing a lot of reading in books I don't have (unless I can find something on the Internet), but I believe Green documented a lot of that.

There were two rolls.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, I really just want to know if those stills appear in any clips anywhere, including LMS. Mainly for the bottom of the feet. I want to know before I bother to look at LMS.

A locked knee is still what I see, but why should I bother with LMS if I am not going to see any more of the film?

 

[LTC8K6]

This is discussed on BFF.

Is that supposed to be an authoritative source?

Here is where the Dr. Hill quote is from, btw.

National Wildlife, April May Issue 1968 Volume 6 Number 3

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm

So far, I can find no one from Yerkes authenticating anything related to bigfoot, thank goodness.

 

[LAL]

Jeez, a perfectly good joke about bunionettes goes right over Lu's head......

WHOOOSH!!!!

I believe you were telling the truth on that other board when you said you had lost friends over this.....



Thanks for the news flash.....

You forgot to point out that Wallace's bunionettes are on the wrong side.......

Sigh......

This is depressing.

Nothing is getting through that bonnet. Nothing.

Since the tone of the post seemed to be right in line with your posts on fake feet and elk prints, I assumed you don't know the difference between a bunion and a bunionette. I didn't want to humiliate you by pointing that out, however...........

http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/tp10782.asp

A bunion is a bony prominence at the base of the big toe, so obviously what you referred to as bunionettes would be bunions, and as, bunions wouldn't be on the wrong side at all.

I apologize for missing your joke, but I've already told you what I think of your sense of humor, even though I did misspell "sophomoric"