Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Nope, I don't happen to have the original, but there are some interesting new developments:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...opic=11287&hl=

Might have been interesting if they had panned out..

You're not seriously suggesting the subject in the PGF is quadrapedal are you ?

The lack of publicly available clear images from PGF convince me there is something to hide.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, I thought baboons and gorillas were apes, not monkeys.

LAL, thanks for those two comparison shots. There does seem to be some slight hand movement that wouldn't be accounted for with a static or wooden hand. It does not, as of yet, rule out 'grabby hand' type mechanisms, though, but if the measurements of upper and lower arm limits rule out the possibility of arm extensions (i.e. if extension appears to be in the UPPER arm only) then we do have an interesting situation for those claiming "man in suit".

Keep in mind - although I do think the PGF is a hoax, I am open to compelling, conclusive evidence - though, frankly, I tend to limit that to live capture or corpse. Still - the apparent hand movement does make me think a bit.

Note the bulge in the area where the wrist would be.. No bulge like this exists at the wrists of bipeds. But it certainly could be a hand operating the ' grabby hand ' ..

Note: the animation is made from stills from different sources, thus the color change ..

 

[Correa Neto]

I´m not convinced that its a real finger movment. The pics have very poor resolution, and many "traps" to human perception can be created by this. This could, IMHO, be the result of light hitting the hand and reflecting from it at different angles in the frames. The arm moved and the bloke in the suit, I mean Patty, moved, changing lighting conditions.

Another alternative would be an illusion created by a slight torsion of the forearm, showing the finger from different angles.

And no, this does not mean the hoaxers intended and planned finger movment to be seen. Its just the casual result of pareidolia in human minds.

 

[WildCat]

IIRC from my human origins classes, baboons are monkeys, not apes. One of the differences between monkeys and apes is the shoulder and arms. Apes can brachiate, monkeys cannot.

 

[Correa Neto]

Depends on which definition you read, I guess. I like this one:

baboon

(Science: zoology) One of the Old World Quadrumana, of the genera Cynocephalus and Papio; the dog-faced ape. Baboons have dog-like muzzles and large canine teeth, cheek pouches, a short tail, and naked callosities on the buttocks. They are mostly African. See Mandrill, and Chacma, and Drill an ape.

Origin: OE. Babewin, baboin, fr.F. Babouin, or LL. Babewynus. Of unknown origin; cf. D. Baviaan, G. Pavian, baboon, F. Babin lip of ape, dogs, etc, dial. G. Bappe mouth.

Possibly you are right, it may depend on the definition of the words (hey, at last something I agree with LAL!).

In Portuguese, monkey and ape are translated to the same word (macaco). I remember something about apes not having tails, while monkeys have tails and are smaller. Babbons and howling monkeys would be monkeys if this is right... However this does not make too much sense to me, since maybe such definition would place the term "great apes" (gorillas, orang-utangs, chimps, bonobos) a bit useless. And howling monkeys, despite having tails, are quite big...

Edited to add:I wrote the above lines before reading Wildcat´s post.End edit

Thank you. Evidently the posters are having difficulty finding any kind of references on Gorilla roadkill.

Are they searching just on the internet? I´m not sure that´s the sort of thing one will find well documented there. A google for roadkill returned a rock band, rugs, smashed deer pics, etc.

What about contacting the folks by e-mail and asking them?
http://www.gorillafund.org/index.html
http://www.berggorilla.de/english/frame.html

But if what you really want is to say that bigfeet do not become roadkill because they live in distant places with few roads, there are few specimens, they are very smart... I´m sorry, but the analogy is not valid.

Compare gorilla geographic span with a road map from Central Africa. Now compare alleged bigfeet geographic span in North America with a road map from North America. See the difference? That Texas Bigfoot conferences links took me to maps comparing Texas bigfeet sighting numbers with human population densities. Check them and you´ll see why the comparsion does not work.

It's interesting to me that the "missing roll" may not be missing after all and that there is still more to be learned after 38 years. The film ranks with the Zapruder film for most-studied film in history, and while it still may be called "inconclusive" (as is all evidence short of a body), it's far from conclusive that there was any hoaxing involved. The figure at its closest is only 1.66 mm tall inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5 mm tall. Blowing it up past 10x produces what? Vague outlines? Fuzziness?

Its seems now you are getting to the point. The blowed-up copies will provide fuzzy pictures, because the original image was small. Thus, trying to find details such as muscles, moving fingers, teeth, lips, etc. is a dangerous proccess. Pareidolia will seep in, and if one wants Patty to be real, one will see muscles; if one wants Patty to be a bloke in a suit, one will find the zipper. Thus, PGF is inconclusive as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Yes, you and those who think its the real deal have the right to say "it's far from conclusive that there was any hoaxing involved". But those like me, who think there´s no real bigfoot, also have the right to say "it's far from conclusive that there wasn´t any hoaxing involved".

It took 60 years for a Gorilla specimen to be brought in after they were "discovered" by Western science, about the same with Giant Pandas. There's time. It's only 38 years since the Patterson film. If I'm still around in another twenty and there's nothing "conclusive" by then I might begin to have my doubts.

What are the important variables that are missing in your analogy, and would ruin it if present?
Its the Time of the species description, that implies in differences in the technology and infrastructure then avaliable.
When was the species discovered? Have you considered how technology has improved since then? How infrastructure has improved? You can´t compare bigfoot´s undiscovery with gorilla species description. Thomas Savage described the first gorilla species in 1847 (http://www.berggorilla.de/english/gjournal/texte/30typus.html). Is it fair to compare the infrastructure and technology avaliable in Africa at the late XIX and early XX century with what´s avaliable at North America from the mid XX century to the early XIX century? I think not. I´m sorry, but the analogy is not valid.

Let me try to make my position clear: Lets use the KISS principle and leave the "you can´t prove a negative" stuff aside for a while. I think there´s no "single definitive unquestionable" evidence or argument that can "prove" bigfeet are not real. Isolated, all of them are questionable, but united, their sum does not leave too much open space for bigfoot being a real animal. I think that there is a great number of evidences and arguments pointing to a negative answer when it comes to the creature´s existence. And I also think the evidence and arguments pro-bigfoot existence not only are weaker than the cons, but they also are in smaller numbers. So, I consider bigfoot´s existence as improbable.

You can find a way to counter any given isolated "against bigfoot" argument (note that some need a quite unrealistic approach to counter). But to invalidate all the arguments would require such a stretch on the chances, that the creature would start to come dangerously close to the supernatural realm, as another poster already stated. Got it now?

 

[Z]

Yes, I forgot baboons have tails; they are, therefore, monkeys.

 

[LAL]

Might have been interesting if they had panned out..

You're not seriously suggesting the subject in the PGF is quadrapedal are you ?

No more than we are. Where did I say anything about that at all?

The lack of publicly available clear images from PGF convince me there is something to hide.

There are whole threads on what's missing and why. Davis has an immense blowup of the clearest frame:

http://www.geocities.com/keefofus/clearestcolorpatty.html?1119233919406

Tell me, are you "Skeptical Greg" inquiring about "donuts" on the right arm on BFF?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No more than we are. Where did I say anything about that at all?


There are whole threads on what's missing and why. Davis has an immense blowup of the clearest frame:


Yep.. The one that made it on to a T-Shirt.. I'ts not the clearest frame. It is a Cibachrome, that could be made from any frame of the film..

We see what those who control the film, allow us to see..


Tell me, are you "Skeptical Greg" inquiring about "donuts" on the right arm on BFF?

yes

 

[LTC8K6]

That motion most resembles a fake hand to me.

 

[LAL]

yes

In that case, I'd like to congratulate you on your respectful debating style on BFF. The term "donut" tipped me off. I considered the possibility that you were stealing "Greg's" stuff since "Diogenes" wouldn't be that nice to the "footers", but that possibility seemed about as far-fetched as Wallace family claims, so I dismissed it. Now that I know you can do it, I hope you'll keep that tone on this board. I hate being afraid to open e-mails for fear of another attack.

 

[LAL]

Yes, I forgot baboons have tails; they are, therefore, monkeys.

Barbary Apes are tailess but are classed as monkeys. Is this getting confusing?

 

[Z]

Just to clarify for all, like me, who were unsure:

The order of primates is characterized by animals with forward-facing eyes and highly flexible arms, legs and fingers. This body structure evolved as an adaptation for life in the trees: Primates have flexible limbs and grasping hands so they can move from branch to branch. The forward-facing eyes are also an adaptation for life in this environment: They give primates excellent depth perception, allowing them to accurately judge the distance between trees.

The 235 modern primate species are divided up into two suborders -- the prosimians and the anthropoids. The prosimians, made up of lemurs and similar animals, are the more primitive group. They exhibit lower intelligence and they more closely resemble other mammal groups (they typically have whiskers and extended snouts, for example). The prosimians split off from the evolutionary line leading to humans relatively early. Anthropoids, commonly called the "higher primates," comprise the rest of the species in the primate order. Anthropoids vary considerably in size, geographical range and behavior, but they all have flat faces, small ears and relatively large, complex brains.

Within the suborder of anthropoids, primates are grouped into monkeys, apes and hominids. The easiest way to distinguish monkeys from the other anthropoids is to look for a tail. Most monkey species have tails, but no apes or hominids do. Monkeys are much more like other mammals than apes and humans are. For example, most monkeys cannot swing from branch to branch, as apes and humans can, because their shoulder bones have a different structure. Instead, monkeys run along the tops of branches. Their skeletal structure is similar to a cat, dog or other four-footed animal, and they move in the same sort of way. On the evolutionary line leading to humans, monkeys split off long before apes did.

The apes, which include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and gibbons, are much more like human beings than monkeys or lower primates are. They have the same basic body structure, possess a high level of intelligence and may exhibit similar behavior. Chimpanzees, humans' closest living relatives, use simple tools extensively and even have culture to some degree. Different chimpanzee social groups develop their own unique tendencies and behaviors, which may be in stark contrast to the behaviors of another group. Gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans exhibit extensive language capability as well, though they do not have the necessary physiological adaptations to produce speech. Scientists have taught apes of all three species to use sign language, as well as special computer keyboards. Apes have even invented their own words in these languages, demonstrating higher cognitive ability.

Hominids are distinguished from apes mainly by mode of locomotion. While apes predominantly use all four limbs to move along the ground, hominids have developed upright bipedal walking -- that is, they walk erect, using only their hind limbs. Switching from quadrupedal walking to bipedal walking was a crucial development in man's evolution because it freed up our ancestors' hands. This allowed them to carry and use tools while walking, which played a significant role in the development of civilization. Humans and extinct hominids are also characterized by large brains and advanced reasoning capabilities.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question660.htm

The point being, LAL, that no ape has a tail. Most monkeys do, but some do not.

 

[RayG]

The point being, LAL, that no ape has a tail.

Except for the gibbon, which I'm told not only has a tail, but apparently the tail has dermal ridge patterns on the underside of it.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5558&st=200&#entry114759

(Though I never did get a link from damndirtyape with the source of that amazing info.)

RayG

 

[LAL]

Possibly you are right, it may depend on the definition of the words (hey, at last something I agree with LAL!).

Call the papers!

<snip>

Are they searching just on the internet? I´m not sure that´s the sort of thing one will find well documented there. A google for roadkill returned a rock band, rugs, smashed deer pics, etc.

It happens. I once Googled an onnocent phrase and got a slew of porn sites. One poster wrote Dr. Stats but hadn't received a reply.

<snip>

But if what you really want is to say that bigfeet do not become roadkill because they live in distant places with few roads, there are few specimens, they are very smart... I´m sorry, but the analogy is not valid.

I think roadlessnes might be a big factor - hard to get hit on a non-road. Good night vision and depth perception might be others. Owls have that and don't seem to be good candidates for roadkill either. I don't know how smart they are. Diurnal birds don't seem to have much of a problem swooping into grills.

Compare gorilla geographic span with a road map from Central Africa. Now compare alleged bigfeet geographic span in North America with a road map from North America. See the difference? That Texas Bigfoot conferences links took me to maps comparing Texas bigfeet sighting numbers with human population densities. Check them and you´ll see why the comparsion does not work.

I'm actually not very concerned about it. The speculation on the thread seemed to be about higher primate susceptibility to becoming roadkill.

Where are the TBC links? On their website?

Its seems now you are getting to the point. The blowed-up copies will provide fuzzy pictures, because the original image was small. Thus, trying to find details such as muscles, moving fingers, teeth, lips, etc. is a dangerous proccess. Pareidolia will seep in, and if one wants Patty to be real, one will see muscles; if one wants Patty to be a bloke in a suit, one will find the zipper.

Fahrenbach wrote on this:

"What this means is that there can be no talk about detecting individual strands of hair, insect bites, the pupil, teeth or whatever fine detail. The supposedly visible nipple would probably include the entire areola, which would be set off by texture from the surround. Actually, everything there is to be seen in the pictures is visible with the naked eye at 50 - 100x magnification, i.e. surprisingly, common sense prevails in "what-you-see-is-what-you-get." Thus, finger or toe detail, that should lie in the vicinity of this 2" limit, does not show up crisply at all. Any conclusions based on supposed detail below the stated limit are largely a function of the imagination of the examiner, should be viewed with grave suspicion, and would require heroic proof to be convincing. Analysis based on anything other than direct copies of the original film frames is also to be avoided at all cost due to the above considerations."

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

So much for "bell-shaped objects".

Thus, PGF is inconclusive as evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Yes, you and those who think its the real deal have the right to say "it's far from conclusive that there was any hoaxing involved". But those like me, who think there´s no real bigfoot, also have the right to say "it's far from conclusive that there wasn´t any hoaxing involved".

It would be nice to have some evidence of hoaxing. Gimlin's confession and the actual suit with a reenactment by someone with those proportions would probably convince me.

You have the right to say anything you wish within the bounds of TOS.

What are the important variables that are missing in your analogy, and would ruin it if present?
Its the Time of the species description, that implies in differences in the technology and infrastructure then avaliable.
When was the species discovered? Have you considered how technology has improved since then? How infrastructure has improved? You can´t compare bigfoot´s undiscovery with gorilla species description. Thomas Savage described the first gorilla species in 1847 (http://www.berggorilla.de/english/gjournal/texte/30typus.html). Is it fair to compare the infrastructure and technology avaliable in Africa at the late XIX and early XX century with what´s avaliable at North America from the mid XX century to the early XIX century? I think not. I´m sorry, but the analogy is not valid.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that decades can pass between "discovery" and capture. The fact that science hasn't "discovered" Sasquatches may be delaying things a bit. I wonder how much tracking techniques have changed.

Let me try to make my position clear: Lets use the KISS principle and leave the "you can´t prove a negative" stuff aside for a while. I think there´s no "single definitive unquestionable" evidence or argument that can "prove" bigfeet are not real. Isolated, all of them are questionable, but united, their sum does not leave too much open space for bigfoot being a real animal. I think that there is a great number of evidences and arguments pointing to a negative answer when it comes to the creature´s existence. And I also think the evidence and arguments pro-bigfoot existence not only are weaker than the cons, but they also are in smaller numbers. So, I consider bigfoot´s existence as improbable.

Elephants are improbable. At least the pro side has evidence, whether the sceptics want to accept it or not.

You can find a way to counter any given isolated "against bigfoot" argument (note that some need a quite unrealistic approach to counter). But to invalidate all the arguments would require such a stretch on the chances, that the creature would start to come dangerously close to the supernatural realm, as another poster already stated. Got it now?

I see no reason to drag in the supernatural (got evidence for it?) at all, so no, I guess I don't "got it".

What "against bigfoot" arguments need an unrealistic approach to counter (other than fossils and roadkill - I don't think the counter arguments are unrealistic at all)?

 

[LAL]

Except for the gibbon, which I'm told not only has a tail, but apparently the tail has dermal ridge patterns on the underside of it.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5558&st=200&#entry114759

(Though I never did get a link from damndirtyape with the source of that amazing info.)

RayG

I seem to have gotten into quite a bit of trouble for my veiled way of saying "Enough about moneys already; the question was about Gorillas!"

 

[Correa Neto]

I think roadlessnes might be a big factor - hard to get hit on a non-road. Good night vision and depth perception might be others. Owls have that and don't seem to be good candidates for roadkill either. I don't know how smart they are. Diurnal birds don't seem to have much of a problem swooping into grills.

The birds that got stuck in my car´s grills were those who were flying low, quite often feeding on something across the road. Owls fly high, unless they are on the "attack run".

Wolves and pumas have very nice night vision and depth perception, but unfortunately quite often become roadkills.

I'm actually not very concerned about it. The speculation on the thread seemed to be about higher primate susceptibility to becoming roadkill.

Where are the TBC links? On their website?

Both sites I linked have contact e-mails. I think that if you are trying to evaluate higher primate susceptibility to becoming a roadkill you should also add other primates than gorillas.

And when applying this to bigfoot, please note that bigfeet habitat encompass areas with much more infrastructure than those where gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orang-utangs, etc. live.

"What this means is that there can be no talk about detecting individual strands of hair, insect bites, the pupil, teeth or whatever fine detail. The supposedly visible nipple would probably include the entire areola, which would be set off by texture from the surround. Actually, everything there is to be seen in the pictures is visible with the naked eye at 50 - 100x magnification, i.e. surprisingly, common sense prevails in "what-you-see-is-what-you-get." Thus, finger or toe detail, that should lie in the vicinity of this 2" limit, does not show up crisply at all. Any conclusions based on supposed detail below the stated limit are largely a function of the imagination of the examiner, should be viewed with grave suspicion, and would require heroic proof to be convincing. Analysis based on anything other than direct copies of the original film frames is also to be avoided at all cost due to the above considerations."

So, this all says more or less what I and other people here are saying. PGF has no definition for such detailed analysis. Finger movment, for example. Not to mention that a major factor has not been touched- lightining conditions may reduce the ammount of detail seen. Teeth flashing = pareidolia.

It would be nice to have some evidence of hoaxing. Gimlin's confession and the actual suit with a reenactment by someone with those proportions would probably convince me.

Chances of a confession seem to be small. I their places, I would not. Heck, even in Wallace´s place I would not. The actual suit... Well, it may not even still exist. I would have burned it to keep things safe.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that decades can pass between "discovery" and capture. The fact that science hasn't "discovered" Sasquatches may be delaying things a bit. I wonder how much tracking techniques have changed.

Decades passed back in early XX / late XIX centuries. With all the resources nowdays avaliable, its very hard to belive that a 3-m high ape, monkey, hominid, marsupial, whatever living across a great extension of North America would not be found.

If by tarcking you mean just following foot(hooves, whatever) prints, little have changed. But nowdays we have IR cameras, remote cameras, a lot of roads, a lot of people making all sort of field activities where the animal is supoosed to live. Enters technology and infrastructure.

Elephants are improbable.

Why are elephants improbable? They are present in the fossil record, there are specimens in the captivity, they are constantly tracked, filmed, etc. Roadkills, well, some cars became roadkilled by elephants...

At least the pro side has evidence, whether the sceptics want to accept it or not.

Here enters the "you can´t prove a negative" issue I´m trying to steer away from to avoid OT digressions.

So, I´ll just say that the evidence avaliable are very weak.

I see no reason to drag in the supernatural (got evidence for it?) at all, so no, I guess I don't "got it".

Simple. It would become so improbable that some "extra skill" could be needed. Please note the "could".

What "against bigfoot" arguments need an unrealistic approach to counter (other than fossils and roadkill - I don't think the counter arguments are unrealistic at all)?

Well, many.
Specially the lack of reliable evidence (sharp footage or stills with no shadow of hoax or a specimen, living or dead), as already discussed ad nauseaum.
I would also add again that I consider several aspects of bigfeet´s anatomy inconsistent and unrealistic, and yes, mid-tarsal breaks included.

 

[LAL]

The birds that got stuck in my car´s grills were those who were flying low, quite often feeding on something across the road. Owls fly high, unless they are on the "attack run".

One or more Barred Owls regularly flew low over the end of my driveway where it joined the very lightly travelled county road. Seemed to part of the flight plan.

Wolves and pumas have very nice night vision and depth perception, but unfortunately quite often become roadkills.

Not where I lived. Scarcity of wolves and roads may have been factors.

Both sites I linked have contact e-mails. I think that if you are trying to evaluate higher primate susceptibility to becoming a roadkill you should also add other primates than gorillas.

I'm not in on that discussion, but I'll post the links when I find the thread again.

And when applying this to bigfoot, please note that bigfeet habitat encompass areas with much more infrastructure than those where gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orang-utangs, etc. live.

Again referring to Skamania County, which seems to have a viable Sasquatch population, the human population was mostly concentrated in a few small towns along the river. The total pop. is only about 10,000. 86% of the county is in National Forest. It has Mt. St. Helens and two traffic lights.

So, this all says more or less what I and other people here are saying. PGF has no definition for such detailed analysis. Finger movment, for example. Not to mention that a major factor has not been touched- lightining conditions may reduce the ammount of detail seen. Teeth flashing = pareidolia.

The finger movement can be seen even on blurry stills. There's an interesting debate on teeth flashing on BFF with time estimates.

Chances of a confession seem to be small. I their places, I would not. Heck, even in Wallace´s place I would not. The actual suit... Well, it may not even still exist. I would have burned it to keep things safe.

Gimlin stated on tape two weeks ago in Yakima that Bob H was not with them in any way in 1967 at Bluff Creek. He's stood by his story for thirty- eight years, possibly because it's the truth.

Even if Patterson had a suit, which he may have had for a scene in his documentary, that's not what's seen in the film.

Decades passed back in early XX / late XIX centuries. With all the resources nowdays avaliable, its very hard to belive that a 3-m high ape, monkey, hominid, marsupial, whatever living across a great extension of North America would not be found.

If by tarcking you mean just following foot(hooves, whatever) prints, little have changed. But nowdays we have IR cameras, remote cameras, a lot of roads, a lot of people making all sort of field activities where the animal is supoosed to live. Enters technology and infrastructure.

Some researchers are using these. The Skookum Expedition tested infra red. They found the batteries ran down too quickly for it to be of much use, but they did find some heat prints on rock.

Elephants are improbable.

Why are elephants improbable? They are present in the fossil record, there are specimens in the captivity, they are constantly tracked, filmed, etc. Roadkills, well, some cars became roadkilled by elephants...

If you knew nothing of elephants and someone described one to you would you think such a creature could be real? Or would you tend to disbelieve the story? Camels aren't very probable either, and I'm not so sure about ostriches. We've already had story about the reception Platypuses got, haven't we?

Here enters the "you can´t prove a negative" issue I´m trying to steer away from to avoid OT digressions.

So, I´ll just say that the evidence avaliable are very weak.

According to some who have examined it, it's compelling.

Simple. It would become so improbable that some "extra skill" could be needed. Please note the "could".



Well, many.
Specially the lack of reliable evidence (sharp footage or stills with no shadow of hoax or a specimen, living or dead), as already discussed ad nauseaum.

How does any of that require paranormal explanations?

I would also add again that I consider several aspects of bigfeet´s anatomy inconsistent and unrealistic, and yes, mid-tarsal breaks included.

Rigid arches seem to be the exception in the primate world. Midtarsal flexibilty seems to be the rule.

 

[UrsulaV]

If you knew nothing of elephants and someone described one to you would you think such a creature could be real? Or would you tend to disbelieve the story? Camels aren't very probable either, and I'm not so sure about ostriches. We've already had story about the reception Platypuses got, haven't we?

And in all those cases, somebody provided a body or live specimen, and our counterparts in that era went "Well, will you look at that?"

Like the noble platypus, it's an issue easily resolved. Go get us a body, and watch how quickly we say "Well, will you look at that?"

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One or more Barred Owls regularly flew low over the end of my driveway where it joined the very lightly travelled county road. Seemed to part of the flight plan.

And this is evidence for Bigfoot? How so ?

Not where I lived. Scarcity of wolves and roads may have been factors.

See above

I'm not in on that discussion, but I'll post the links when I find the thread again.


Again referring to Skamania County, which seems to have a viable Sasquatch population, ....

And your evidence for this is ? .... ( Note: Anecdotes not evidence here at JREF .... )



The finger movement can be seen even on blurry stills. There's an interesting debate on teeth flashing on BFF with time estimates.

Not ! We can see stills where the fingers are extended and stills where they are bent.. Easily accomplished with a ' grabby hand ' mechanism .. ( I'll recant if you show me a clip with finger movement )

The flashing teeth thing is only interesting in that it is laughable..
It has been shown that such detail is not supported by the resolution of the film.. The teeth do not show up on the cibachromes...

The owners of the good copies of the film, have everything to gain by making cibachrome copies of every frame available for analysis, unless they are trying to hide something..




Gimlin stated on tape two weeks ago in Yakima that Bob H was not with them in any way in 1967 at Bluff Creek. He's stood by his story for thirty- eight years, possibly because it's the truth.

Even if Patterson had a suit, which he may have had for a scene in his documentary, that's not what's seen in the film.



Some researchers are using these. The Skookum Expedition tested infra red. They found the batteries ran down too quickly for it to be of much use, but they did find some heat prints on rock.


If you knew nothing of elephants and someone described one to you would you think such a creature could be real? Or would you tend to disbelieve the story? Camels aren't very probable either, and I'm not so sure about ostriches. We've already had story about the reception Platypuses got, haven't we?



According to some who have examined it, it's compelling.



How does any of that require paranormal explanations?



Rigid arches seem to be the exception in the primate world. Midtarsal flexibilty seems to be the rule.

Indeed.. What does this have to do with Bigfoot ? ( hint: we don't have a specimen )


Your resident Bigfoot ' foot ' expert, doesn't know a bear track when he see's one.

 

[Winslow Leach]

If you forget suit bulges, dark bands, moving fingers, and everything else you can't see. All you have to do is look at a clear copy of the film and see that the legs are not attached to the buttocks. It's there in plain sight and we can all see it clearly. No second guessing, the backside does not move with the legs at all, it's static, it's part of a costume and it's game over.