Ceroill: “One man said that what the PG film clip shows has to be human, because of the way it moves. At least one other showed evidence from that film or from other sources that indicated an ape. What if, going on the assumption for a moment that there is something there, this creature is a transitional form?”

Well, could be. And it could be people reading into it more than is there. It could just be a bipedal ape, which is what I’m sticking with until evidence comes in otherwise. (The old walks/looks/quacks thing).

I’ve seen that the gait, and the feet, and the hands, and the face, and the “language,” and whatever else make it human. (Don’t think anyone has said that its saying “don’t shoot!” made it human. Yet.) Well, to me, that’s like saying that a penguin has to be human because it looks like a guy in a tuxedo. I’ve seen people postulate a conscience, advanced reasoning ability and a soul based on the gait and the feet alone.

Is a dragonfly a bird because it has wings? No more than an ape is human because it’s bipedal.

I mean, we don’t know yet. Over the past few decades we’ve seen one “human hallmark” after another go by the boards because we find that other species have it. Who knows whether the discovery of the sasquatch could move the human template again? I sure don’t.

But to say it does based on evidence we have, well, is a porpoise a fish?

But one thing that caught my attention was what some saw as an inherent conflict in the statements of some of the experts. One man said that what the PG film clip shows has to be human, because of the way it moves. At least one other showed evidence from that film or from other sources that indicated an ape. What if, going on the assumption for a moment that there is something there, this creature is a transitional form? It might just be a previously unknown member of the genus Homo, but retain a few ape-like traits such as the mid-tarsal break, limb proportions and head structure.

Just a possibility to muse on.

The thing that really stuck out for me that was new, and perhaps folks didn’t pick up on it as much as I did, was the use of photogrammetry to determine the height of the individual in the P-G film. This was the show highlight for me. Munns essentially proved without a doubt that the individual was over 7 feet tall. I’m not so certain about the head-mask thing, but his knowledge about the history of special effects and monster costumes in particular carry a lot of weight.

Perhaps folks can correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the P-G film also show a step style by the creature that is in line with the mid-tarsal break?

As far as the Freeman footage goes, I don’t think that it shows enough to be considered as good as the P-G film. The image is too low-quality, and you never see the entire creature, which is also backlit. I’m not saying it’s a hoax, but I’m also not saying it’s a sasquatch either. The data is simply not there in the film.
Hopefully, with the introduction of affordable Hi-def capable camcorders to the general market, some one will finally be able to get a film that outshines P-G.

I generally consider myself a skeptic, and I think that the evidence pointing to the existence of a large bipedal primate unknown to science is actually pretty good – granted the arguments against it existing aren’t easily dismissable either. It’s the type of rigorous investigations shown in this episode that will get us closer to the reality of the situation.

And I do agree with others here that not enough of the Freeman footage was seen or studied. Although Meldrum’s estimation that the footage was legit after talking to Freeman is not scientifically “acceptable,” I personally have a lot of trust in Meldrum’s integrity—so his estimation of the film’s “validity” goes a long way in “legitimizing” it—at least in MY book.

Great show and great thread, Loren. I wonder what skpetics like Radford or Nickell would make of the new evidence presented here. Not much, I’m afraid.

I liked the structure of this episode. It would be great if they would look at the most compelling evidence for other cryptids, such as the evidence for freshwater lake monsters.

The midtarsal hinge and broken foot reconstructions were probably the most interesting parts for me; it would have been nice to look at the dermal impression evidence as well.

The rainfall map should have been only one part of the GIS study (maybe it is, and the rest isn’t done yet). Other factors that should be layers in any future maps:

1. Forest and vegetation types. More rainfall generally means more vegetation growth, and more cover for large animals to hide in. But the varieties of forest types probably matter as well: hardwood vs coniferous (what is the supposed diet), diversity of vegetation, etc.

2. Elevation/terrain types/slopes etc. Does rougher terrain or elevation figure in?

3. Human population centers (people tend to see more, when there are more people to see but remoteness also is key for larger mammals who need larger territory, and larger breeding populations.

4. Active Bigfoot enthusiast groups. People who go looking actively, will see more. We don’t have any real active Bigfoot groups in Montana that I know of, yet we have a fair number of sightings anyway. There are lots of sightings in the NW and California where there are more groups and remote terrain, but there are also a surprisingly large number of sightings

Of course there is no apparent attempt to set quality standards for the sightings either; a sighting of a Bigfoot from 20 feet away by a credible witness in the deep woods of Washington is not differentiated from a sighting of a dark manlike form in thick farmstead woods from 200 yards by an elderly housewife who forgot her glasses…in the twilight

There are likely multiple variables, which is what I suspect.

As an anthropologist myself (focused more on cultural anthro and archaeology than physical or primatology) I think there are probably a convergence of factors, some cultural or psychological in nature (90%+ of sightings) but with that 10% of those non-hoaxed Bigfoot sightings by credible witnesses in good conditions, and with physical proof gathered.

Just like with UFOs, I think there are multiple things going on that get lumped under “Bigfoot,” some human error or hoaxing, even some possibly paranormal/Fortean, but that Bigfoot does exist as a physical being, I do not doubt, either as an anthropologist or as a Native American.

I know the film speed has been questioned in previous documentaries since Roger’s camera had 3 speed settings and he claimed he was not sure what it was set at when he took the famous footage, but since when has the lens type been a mystery?

Also, since the film’s speed was never brought up in this show, have we come to some sort of consensus regarding which speed Roger took it at? I remember seeing a documentary several years ago where the expert (I believe it was the late Grover Krantz) claimed that the creature walked quite differently if you show the film at different speeds.

At certain speeds Grover claimed a human could not duplicate the gate of the figure but at another speed the figures walk look identical to an average humans.

I find it odd that so much was made of the lens type which ought to be common knowledge by now, while the film speed mystery was left completely unaddressed.

If so, then why not show the whole thing. I know Freeman had his times for us to doubt the footage, but if you watch the complete footage it does not appear to be fake as well as looking very similar to the PG footage.