Cryptomundo » Sasquatch Maximus

Sasquatch Maximus

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 10th, 2007

Patty

Many may tire of viewing this footage during this, its 40th year. But it remains my favorite Bigfoot film, for every time I look at it, I ponder the wonder of a hominoid that may be there, right before our eyes.

What are your top three reasons for considering this the best piece of evidence for Bigfoot existence?

And if a skeptic, what are your top three reasons for feeling the opposite?

So, what was someone saying about the gluteus maximus looking stranger than the mammary glands?

Will new attention to this film reveal new insights in 2007?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 at 2:01 am and is filed under Bigfoot, CryptoZoo News, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Expedition Reports, Eyewitness Accounts, Sasquatch, Videos. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

221 Responses to “Sasquatch Maximus”

Bob K. responds: July 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am
What convinces me most is the moving musculature of the creature (the pectoral muscles and the pathology in the creatures thigh come to mind) which sort of rules out the furry costume hypothesis. Everything else-the circumstances under which this video was shot, the natural reaction displayed by the creature as it turns to keep an eye on its photographers, and the fact that its obviously a female. Wouldnt a faker naturally want their subject to be a more impressive, more dangerous male of the species (theres a reason that “Mighty Joe Young” wasnt “Mighty JANE Young”).
Lee Murphy responds: July 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
1. Dr. Meldrum’s close-up presentation of the right foot at the ‘05 Texas Bigfoot Conference where you can see the toes splay open independantly from the foot.

2. Dr. Krantz’ shoulder-width analysis.

3. It just looks real.
beim responds: July 10th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I think to myself as you are about to, man, this was in the sixties! Do you remember anything in any film or for that matter the entire existence back then that would replicate this in such a manor as to puzzle the brightest of people today? Today we watch hilarious sasquatch commercials on tv, and still never have we seen such a spectacle of a sasquatch as this. Our minds can’t imagine such a being actually existing without everyone realizing that this in fact is as real as you and I. We need to have CNN take a break from their entertainment news and devote an hour to tell this to everyone, let them talk about it, and declare it a holiday.
Ceroill responds: July 10th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I concur with Bob K. I’ll do the numbers

1- Seeming inability even now to make a suit that looks that good. They’re all much shaggier, with much longer hair. Patty has close lying body hair. On a costume that tends to show seams and joints easily, so a costume needs longer hair to cover the connections and seams.

2- Easy movement. Bulky hairy suits tend to make one move more clumsily, from what I’ve seen.

3- Behavior.
proriter responds: July 10th, 2007 at 7:09 am
The P-G film looks better every day. Now that we’re bombarded with clumsy YouTube fakes of all sorts, it’s getting hard to lump the P-G film in with them. Aside from that, the P-G film carries its own weird internal proof: if the figure were a fake, why would the fakers make it female? Why would they have it turn its head to look at the camera, when that would tend to show the costume to its worst advantage? And why can’t any of the so-called “Bigfoot costumes” we see today even come close to appearing as lifelike as the figure in the P-G film?

Given unlimited money, P & G could perhaps have faked the figure in the film — if Rick Baker had been practicing his art back then. But they certainly didn’t have the wherewithal to come up with such a convincing fake back in 1967. We old-timers have all seen the gorilla costumes and monster suits in high-dollar movies and TV shows of that era, and they don’t look anything like the P-G figure.

Until recently, I had been skeptical of the P-G film, as I am of most things along these lines. But on viewing the stabilized images, I think that whatever the figure is, it’s not an actor in a suit. Them’s my sediments!
mitchigan responds: July 10th, 2007 at 7:19 am
There is no reason at least in my mind why someone would produce a fake suit which has breasts. The only thing that really bothered me about this particular beastie is the soles of the feet. Something just doesn’t seem quite right about them, but then I’ve never seen the soles of a Sas.
YourPTR! responds: July 10th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I think the soles of the feet are reflecting the sunlight present that day and also primates do have lighter colored soles to their feet as well as the palms of their hands. The color could also be contributed to the debris from the ground that is stuck to them. I think the film is genuine. A half decent recreation can’t even be produced 40 years on. The figure is massive and you can see the muscles flexing under the hair and the arms are also much longer than a humans.
titantim responds: July 10th, 2007 at 8:41 am
I have always thought the film was genuine. But until recently I had not noticed the way the hair on Patty’s right leg moves when her foot hits the ground. Watch the hair shake and shimmer from her ankle up to the top of her thigh. A costume would not exhibit this little tidbit of motion. Only hair attached to skin over muscle would react this way. Also it gives some idea to the force of the foot striking the ground, as it would take a pretty good impact to make the muscles and skin move that high up on her thigh. Put on some shorts and make some long jogging steps and watch your leg muscles bounce and move, then look at Patty’s right leg as it moves. Pretty convincing.
SoulTim responds: July 10th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I’m in the odd position of not really believing in Bigfoot, but at the same time having a real difficulty explaining a film like this.

All the actual expert analysis of it that I’ve read indicated that it was shot at 18fps, and that a human could not mimic the movement of the creature filmed at this that rate.

The questions regarding it’s unique appearance (hair-covered breasts and a female bearing a pronounced crest) aren’t very strong, as other pendulous breasted animals (humans and chimps) evolved in a similar environment far different from the pacific northwest. Evolutionary biology seems to indicate that the shape of the breast is what matters, and hair clear does not obscure that. There is also nothing innate to the purpose of a sagittal crest that would require it to be more pronounced in the male than the female, that just seems to be the way sexual dimorphism worked out in other primates. All it indicates is that if Bigfoot exists, it likely feeds on something that requires a great deal of biting force.

Also, I don’t personally believe that it could be a person in that suit. Even a stout human would have a difficult time filling out that suit without padding, and the creature in that picture displays an ease of limb movement that precludes padding. Padding would occupy the neck and arm-pit, making it difficult to swing it’s arms without exaggeration. It would also fill the space between it’s thighs, giving it a bow-legged or waddling gate.
superd responds: July 10th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Real because
1 it’s a female
2 muscle movement
3 gant
4 arm length
5 filmed until out of sight (not stopped while still in vision like some fakes)
6 foot casts to go with film
7 Bobs account not wavering
I could go on but you get the picture, or you’ve got THE picture.
mystery_man responds: July 10th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I am not 100% convinced that this footage is real, however it still enthralls me and never fails to instill a sense of wonder in me. This was done by men without a whole lot of money, back in the sixties and to me it still looks far more like a real animal than anything modern special effects are able to produce. No matter how good a suit is, it always seems like just a good suit. This footage is different. To me it moves fluidly and shows enough striking details in the hair, musculature, and breasts to be quite compelling to those who see it the first time or a hundred times, even in this jaded age of snazzy special effects and hoaxed videos. And this was done on the fly, seemingly in one take, by men who could most likely not afford to pull this off back in the sixties even if the technology was available. And no, I do not believe the costumes to from Planet of the Apes to be on par with what we see here. Watch those movies, then watch this. They are quite different in my opinion.

I am not convinced that Bigfoot is necessarily real, and I am perfectly willing to accept skeptical theories. However, this video leaves a lot to be explained and that hasn’t been done to a satisfactory degree for me. I don’t think the PG footage will ever be accepted as concrete proof, but it is amazing footage nonetheless whether that is of a hairy hominid or evidence of striking suit making abilities that have yet to be replicated or explained. This footage still makes me wonder, what if?
grafikman responds: July 10th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
For me the top 3 points for validity are:

1. The head turning. Any mask would interfere with movement and show it in either the head or shoulder/back padding or an unnatural neck crease in the costume, or prevent the head from turning that much of an angle at all.

2. The mere fact that the head turns and looks at all. Anyone who wore a Halloween mask as a kid remembers how hard it is to see where you’re going, even before it got dark. Anyone wearing a mask and costume like that would be slowly ambling along with their head pointed straight down, gingerly picking their way over rocks, branches and debris to keep from faceplanting every 3 or 4 steps, much less actually turning and looking behind as they’re walking!

3. The leg muscle tremors displayed with each step. Any padding or costume wouldn’t transfer motion the way a natural muscle/skin combination would.

I have to laugh (And cringe. And roll my eyes. Simultaneously.) every time I hear about the Planet of the Apes theory. If anyone stops and looks at those movies they NEVER WORE ANY APE COSTUMES! They all wore uniforms and leather!

I think there was one small scene in the first movie with the apes in a sauna, and the upper body appliances were laughable. Nothing even remotely resembling the PG film.
Mothmanfan responds: July 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The only thing that makes me doubt it at the moment is how clean the fur is. It doesn’t have any visible leaves or sticks. Unless they take a shower every day.

1) Like the others said, if it was a fake people would make it have giant claws and teeth or whatever, and make it try to attack the filmers.

2) The costumes even now aren’t that good (maybe if you had billions o’ bucks, but I don’t think these people had much money).

3) If it was a fake someone might make it run away. but this thing just looks at the people and keeps on walking.

Most of this people have already said but they are my reasons.
proriter responds: July 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
As to the absence of debris in its fur, I’ve never yet seen a photo of a bear or an ape with visible material stuck in its hair. I own Bouviers des Flandres, very shaggy dogs, and though they live mostly outide in the woods they’ve never come in with more than a small leaf stuck in their coats. (Speaking of shaggy dogs, ever hear the one about the cross-eyed bear named Gladly?)
CryptoInformant responds: July 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
proriter: erm, sediments? Not quite sure what you mean there, b/c sediments are little bits of rock.
grafikman: uh, do you look drunk or something when you laugh, cringe, and roll your eyes, because that sounds like it would be a very funny looking expression.
CryptoInformant responds: July 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Oh, and I almost forgot, here are my reasons for thinking this is a genuine video.
1) Nothing we have, not even the suit from the Messin’ With Sasquatch type beef jerky commercials, even looks half as real as this. Planet of the Apes my broken little toe!
2) Judging by modern hoax videos, wouldn’t a guy in a suit waddle into view and then, um, waddle away? (Sorry, waddle’s just fun to say)
3) Wouldn’t a hoaxer of that era, back when we thought gorillas were big, mean monster apes, make a video of a big, clawed, aggressive male roaring and beating its chest, rather than a female just walking by and acting in a manner that says, “Oh, would you look at that. People on horses!”
chabuhi responds: July 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I think a large part of the skepticism about the PG film derives from Patterson’s somewhat derogatory biography (at least, what tends to be publicly known about him). He seems to “fit the profile” of someone desperate to capitalize on Bigfoot.

That said, the recent stabilization and enhancement of certain frames of the film have definitely curbed my prior skepticism, if only to a degree.

It is definitely a compelling film.
ygor427 responds: July 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Three reasons why Patty is probably a hoax:

1. The incredible “luck” of Roger Patterson. He happened to be filming a documentary about bigfoot, with a rented camera no less, when he just happened to get an awesome shot of a bigfoot. How come none of the other bigfoot expeditions have had such luck?

2. David Daegling’s book Bigfoot Exposed points out that Patty’s heel is flat and sticks out beyond the rest of the foot. A piece of bone this thin would shatter when hitting the ground. This much more consistent with a fake foot from a monster costume than biology.

3. Chris Walas, academy award nominated SFX guru responsible for The Fly, noted on a bigfoot forum that the legs move freely while the creature’s hips and bottom remain stationary. Sure enough if you look at the little Patty clip at the top of this page you can see how the legs seem to moving separately from the hips and butt. Walas noted how this is textbook behavior from old school monster costumes…the legs being made from a thin flexible material while the body part is stiffer because of padding.

We’ll never know the truth about this film, but I think that those three reasons (plus many more) point toward it being a well produced hoax more so than an unknown North American hominid species.
ygor427 responds: July 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
One more thing…a lot of you posters are using the ol’ “hoaxers are too dumb” chestnut which despite MASSIVE evidence to contrary seems to still be in use.

Who says Roger Patterson wouldn’t have the brains to come up with a subtle walking bigfoot rather than an attacking brute? He knew that he shouldn’t overplay his hand. A raging, ,snarling, in-focus bigfoot would look even phonier than Patty. If you think that people in 1967 weren’t smart enough to figure this out, you are dead wrong.
titantim responds: July 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
YGOR427,
Your theory has one big flaw. No one in the entire WORLD has been able to produce this costume or make one that looks half this real in over 40 years!
greenmartian2007 responds: July 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I find problems with the film, as I stated in another thread. See Chris Murphy’s excellent book “Meet the Sasquatch”..which I consider a top book for everyone to read.

I draw your attention to pages 52-3.

Frames 307 323, 339, for the issue about the “stitching going down the middle of the back” and additionally see how the hair line goes around the buttocks area in 362 and 364 (on page 54). I cannot claim to be a primate zoologist, but I would like a primate zoologist attempt to explain these strange “stitching effects” down the back and around the buttocks as being natural. If it can be so proved, then all well and good.

I don’t want an advocate attempting to explain this, we need a scientist. To get the Sasquatch concept out of the realm of questionability, you have to have scientists make these judgement calls. Not advocates for or against. But they can be told what we observers see in the film. Usually it is observers that point out things first.

Does this mean the film is faked these things I have pointed out? Don’t know at this juncture.

But I would very much like to see definitive explanations (with decent parallel proxy-simulant data from real-world, primates in the wild. Super good photography of the backs of gorillas and chimps and orangs…see if they exhibit the patters of the “stitched line” down the back, and echo with shape and hair-growth as seen in this very odd and strange “buttocks” images of the creature in the P-G film as shown quite clearly in frames 339 and 343.

These issues that I mention here bother me greatly, and (at this juncture) tell me something is wrong. Even if you look at frame 323 and 339, you get a pretty good view of its buttocks, and it looks wrong.

Let’s get some decent similar-angled photography of other primates, and let’s compare.

If we can do that, and address these concerns, all the well and better.

Currently, I am not a “true believer” in this specific film. I question all things, including old data. One thing that this field lacks, is good illustrative representation.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a bipedal primate striding around in North America. It just means that to me at this juncture, this film isn’t evidence for it, if the issues I raise cannot be resolved completely.
ygor427 responds: July 10th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
titanium,

You are right about that but I would argue that nobody has ever put the effort into it. I’m guessing that most of the costumes made were for shows like “Sightings” that were biased toward acceptance of the film so of course their replicas looked crappy. On the other hand, skeptical programs like BS don’t think that it’s worth the effort.

This is just my interpretation of course but more importantly I think it’s a logical gap to assume that because nobody has duplicated the costume it automatically means that it is impossible for it to be a costume.
Mnynames responds: July 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
ygor427 has an interesting point about the mobility of the legs, but any quick look in the mirror while walking should prove that the same holds true for any of us. The hips and buttocks move much less that the legs under normal circumstances.

Personally, I’m strongly persuaded by the footage that what I am seeing is a real, non-Human animal, but unfortunately, the quality of the film, the circumstances of the encounter, and the character of the people involved will always leave enough questions open to give hardcore skeptics ample leeway.

Anyway, here are my three reasons-

1) Morphology- It has been said that Dr. Krantz’s original assessment that the shoulder width and chest structure fall outside of human norms is incorrect, but even if that is so, it would be an extraordinarily rare person who would exhibit both traits. The lack of a definable neck probably fits under this category as well, adding a likely 3rd trait and making such a person even rarer. If P-G faked it, they would had to have found such an individual, which means one of 2 things- they either knew of, or they went searching for someone with such a frame. If the former, surely someone would remember such a unique individual palling around with them. If the latter, how was such a search kept secret?

It may also be worth noting that we know what such unusually-framed people such as Andre the Giant look like in a BF suit, using FX technology of a decade later, and it’s well…less than convincing.

The morphological kicker though has to be the arm length, which Krantz is quite correct in saying that it falls outside of human norms. Even if you could find someone with arms that long, the elbow would not be placed at the same point. These arms clearly bend and flex and seem quite natural, so the bend is there and does bend, meaning that there cannot be a human arm hidden inside the structure, as it would in a suit or armature.

2) Musculature- Despite the deficiencies of the film, one can clearly see the rippling, flexing, and shuddering of muscles beneath the hair and skin, which, considering the state of the special effects art of the period, would have to mean that either it is a real animal, or a real man with said morphology in a very tight suit.

3) Gender- I debated on this one a bit, but ultimately it comes down on the positive side for me. Yes, we know P-G knew of female BF sightings, and were they hoaxers, they may very well have thought to make theirs a girl in order to make a hoax appear less likely. However, the logistics of pulling off a hoax of this nature lead me to suspect that they probably would’ve tabled that idea in favour of something simpler. It would be yet one more feature they would have to “get right” before they executed their hoax, and an added cost on what would had to have been a very expensive suit. This leads me to a 4th reason.

4) Cost and Effort- If this is a hoax, then the costume would have to have been quite costly to produce, and likely would also have required numerous test runs and revisions in order to perfect. The effort would have been quite substantial, and one would think they might have gotten more footage of it, had they put all this time and money into it. Yes, they got the money shot, but previous or subsequent shots of it mostly obscured by woods would have gone a long way in further validating their experience, and surely they were smart enough to have thought of that (If they were smart enough to execute the rest of it, that is). Also, surely, they would likewise have been smart enough that they’d never recoup the money necessary to invest in such a project, so where’s their motivation? Not money, surely.

In the end, if we accept that the P-G Film is a hoax, then we are left with the questions of who made the suit and what happened to it?

Ultimately, it just seems much more probable that this is a genuine, undiscovered, non-human animal than the idea of 2 cowboy investigators being closet super-geniuses undertaking a Herculean effort to hoax something they never really gained anything for except suspicion.
Mnynames responds: July 10th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
That should read-

“Also, surely, they would likewise have been smart enough TO KNOW that they’d never recoup the money necessary to invest in such a project, so where’s their motivation?”

Woops…
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Many things have me leery of saying that the P/G footage is the real deal. However, I will try to stay true to the “top 3″ limit to be fair (and to save space).

1. I disagree with the claims that the breasts, etc. “prove” that the thing seen in the P/G footage is real. Let’s not forget that Patterson was familiar with a report of a female Bigfoot. The mistake people are making is that they assume that Patterson would have to have a suit made to look exactly the sketches depicting the creature described in the Roe sighting instead of cherry-picking details from various sightings to create his “own” Bigfoot. He was interested in Bigfoot sightings and would defintiely have a lot of material to work with.

The claim that one couldn’t make a realistic ape suit with 60’s technology is also something I don’t agree with. One of the costumes used in 1955’s HALF HUMAN (aka MONSTER SNOWMAN) quite realistic and, interestingly enough, was balding (such much for the idea that someone couldn’t come up with a random, realistic detail for a Bigfoot costume). However, certain circumstances make seeing this movie difficult (which also effects getting pictures of the particular costume I’m talking about)

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had some realistic-looking ape-men (albeit long-haired). I would like to see what would happen if someone made a long-haired suit, “gave it a trim,” and then tried filming it, though.

The idea that good-looking special effects can’t be done on a low budget is hilarious to me. A trip to the “Monster Page of Halloween Project Links” shows tons of great-looking effects than can be done on a low budget. And let’s not forget Hananuma Masakichi’s famous sculpture of himself.

2. Where’s the negative? Analysing the negative is the best way to see if any tampering was done to the film. Also shady is Patterson’s reselling of film rights as if he was the sole owner. How come none of the “owners” have the negative?

3. I see nothing special about “Patty”’s walk. In fact, it looks quite humanlike in the stabilizied footage. I know there are claims that a human being can’t duplicate that walking style, but Bob Heironimus proved otherwise. I’m not saying he was “Patty,” but I am saying that he showed that the “impossible” was possible. But when you’re working with estimates based off of (then) jittery footage, I can’t cast much blame. After all, knowledgable people have been fooled before, such as the “dermal ridges” on supposed Sasquatch footprints and the “Three-Toes” hoax in Florida.
corrick responds: July 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I personally think Drs. Daegling and Schmitt’s analysis of the footage in a 1999 Skeptical Inquirer article, “Bigfoot’s Screen Test,” is the beginning and end to the argument. They conclude that for a number of technical issues “it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence.”

So unless some radically new photographic analysis technology is invented you can argue real vs. fake ad nauseum. But understand, either way, no “new insights” constitute any legitimate scientific proof pro or con. It’s only all personal conjecture. Sure lots of it sounds persuasive from both sides, but the bottom line there just isn’t enough detailed information in the negatives (think pixels), to ever definitively identify “Patty.”

As for the argument about recent TV Sasquatch costumes. Please ask about how incredibly cheap these producers are. Remember, they don’t give a rip about authenticity, just ratings and their own profits. I’m sure they asked designers to make those costumes for free.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Oh, for God’s sake, get some new evidence! It’s funny (and a little sad) how Bigfooters cling to this forty years later… I’m sure there will be Bigfoot conferences 40 years from now, and there will be yet more “new” analyses of the P/G film.

Few stop to wonder why, if it is authentic, a much better film hasn’t been shot since 1967.
showme responds: July 10th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
My reasons for being skeptic about this film:

1. The break in the waistline is quite distinct, giving the impression that the subject is wearing a suit made of upper and lower parts. It looks like hairy pants.

2. Footprints gathered at the site just don’t look real.

3. The subject appears to retreat too casually for an animal that has never been sighted and filmed again since this incident.
grafikman responds: July 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Benjamin Radford responds:

“Few stop to wonder why, if it is authentic, a much better film hasn’t been shot since 1967.”

>You’ve answered your own question. Because it’s impossible to do, because it wasn’t hoaxed.

Ok, try to set any personal animosity aside and check out the FAQ on the BFRO site as to why there aren’t more pictures. Yes, I know skeptics and even some squatch believers think Moneymaker is a scheister but the points he brings forth are logical.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 10th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
corrick is 100% dead-on accurate in their description of producers in the TV industry (and also in the movie biz). After all, isn’t it a little odd that a suit that was supposedly commissioned to look like “Patty” came out looking nothing like what was in the P/G footage seem odd? Either the people (person?) hired to create the suit were incompetant idiots or they were simple told to make a “realistic Bigfoot costume” (on the assumption that P/G supporters felt that a realistic-looking suit couldn’t be made).

And considering the BBC’s usual standard for Bigfoot-related costumes, well, one can see why they’d be so pleased with what they got.

On an unrelated note, I once read a reference to Roger Patterson planning on making a movie about cowboys who capture a Bigfoot-like creature before deciding to do a documentary. Now, this was long before I heard of Bob Heironimus and this wasn’t presented as “proof” that the P/G footage was a hoax. In fact, I believe it was presented in a “Good thing he abandoned that idea, or else he never would’ve gone to Bluff Creek” way. I haven’t been able to find any other references to this, so I’m tempted to write it off as a tall tale or mistake in my memory.

However, it was that story which planted the seeds of doubt that the footage was fake. After all, it’d be awfully convenient if Patterson was involved in a failed movie that would’ve required a Bigfoot costume and then shot footage involving Bigfoot? However, this would only work if the supposed “Bigfoot western” actually existed and got to a stage where a suit was designed. Has anyone ever heard that story before?
mystery_man responds: July 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
AtomicMrEmonster- Well, do you suggest that they had access to that site and all of those cool costumes back in the 60s? I am not a firm believer in this film, but I doubt the costume technology on a low budget was available back in those days to produce what we see in the film. Whatever could be done today, hasn’t been done to reproduce the film to a satisfactory degree, and even if it was, remember the costumes you mentioned weren’t available at affordable prices. I find it hilarious that people think it could have been that easy back in the 60s as it is claimed it would be today. As for the Space Oddessy costumes, they were costumes used on a relatively high budget motion picture, and they still don’t look as realistic to me as Patty does.
mystery_man responds: July 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I do find the range of opinions on Patty’s walk to be interesting. Opinions run the gamut from wholly inhuman and amazing, to just a normal human walk. I personally think the walk is compelling simply because even if it is reproducible, it hasn’t been done to a satisfying degree, in full costume, over rough terrain, in a suit that looks as good as this one does. I saw the attempts to reproduce the walk and they were pretty laughable to me.
chrisandclauida2 responds: July 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
i always scream assumptions kill the investigators credibility, but in this case they help.

they help because hoaxers always seem to assume the same things. the assume that all Sasquatches are like patty. this helps identify hoaxers pretty quick. after that we can tell from the creature its self being as an obvious costume from the local fun shop or the staging of the encounter.

i think the Patterson film is the real deal. they way the right calf and lower leg flex extend and move together is something i have never seen since except in real animals. the body and how it interacts with its parts to move is also something i have never seen in any recreation or attempt to prove the footage a hoax.

finally when i see the film i still get goose bumps and that oh my [insert favorite or preferred divinity here] GOD feeling in the pit of my stomach. i dont believe IN the patty footage as that would mean i have to exercise faith to an extent to feel it is real.

i know it is real from so many little things and the fact it has been tested by so many debunkers none of who debunked it. i might add none of the debunkers ever produced a product that looked anything like patty. all of them provided a finished product that looked exactly like all the poor attempts at a hoax that we have seen so many times thru the years.

the patty film is real. i find it strange that a picture and the word of a scientist is all we need to prove other unknown or previously thought extinct animals exist but we need so much more for a Sasquatch.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
mystery_man:

I highly doubt that they had access to the costumes for either movie. All I was saying was that realistic suits weren’t impossible with 60’s technology. I can’t definitely say whether or not they had access to the site, but a hoaxer would have to a fool not to try having practice runs using similar conditions, if not at the same site.

Whatever could be done today, hasn’t been done to reproduce the film to a satisfactory degree, and even if it was, remember the costumes you mentioned weren’t available at affordable prices.

Heh. That reminds me of an incident at Halloweenforum.com that happened a few years back. Someone whose company specialized in lenticular portraits that seemed to change shape as you walked by dropped in and took offense to someone saying that the $100 price tag was too high (I think the line was called “Haunted Memories”). He claimed it was impossible to make the effect in such a way that could make a profit for an under $100 price tag. Another forumgoer proceeded to create a similar effect for the grand sum of $15.

In other words, it’s all about the talent. With the right person and materials, you can come up with expensive-looking effects for less than what you’d expect. If you’ve got someone with the skills to create a good-looking custom-job, you wouldn’t need a commercially-made suit. Come to think of it, weren’t there some special effects artists who said that the P/G footage looked fake to them?

As for the Space Oddessy costumes, they were costumes used on a relatively high budget motion picture, and they still don’t look as realistic to me as Patty does.

It’s all a matter of perception. That thread I linked to regarding the movie Half Human has poster who says that the P/G footage looks like something out of a George Zucco movie (For those not in the know, that’s a bad thing). Personally, I find the masks in “2001″ to be more compelling than the “furry ninja mask” that Patty seems to be sporting. I’m sure that others will think I’m crazy for thinking that. Hell, I once suspected that footage of a frilled shark captured in Japan was part of a viral campaign, so maybe they’d have a point. Such is the nature of perception (and, yes, this would also apply to the special effects artists noted above).

And, as corrick noted, commercial filmmakers tend to not worry about creature effects looking 100% realistic. They only have to be “realistic enough” to satisfy the production company.
Atticus responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:36 am
The P/G film always fascinated me when I was younger. But the older I get and the more and more I study and analyze it, it’s getting harder to be a optimist about the existence of Bigfoot.

I always notice nowadays what almost looks a fold appearing on the upper right thigh. Like the costume is buckling a bit.
jamesrav responds: July 11th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Ever since seeing the stabilized footage I’ve been intrigued by the one second shot when Patty touches her thumb to another finger. It seems like such a delicate movement, something that couldn’t be accomplished with an artificial glove. Gloves always seem to be a neglected part of ‘cheap’ costumes, not much better than work gloves at a hardware store. If this is a complete one or two piece costume (and not a head, top, bottom, arms, hands stuck together), then the designer really paid attention to the hand portion, he gave it a lot of flexibility for the finger to bend so naturally. All this for a few hundred dollars? Nobody has ever disputed that Patterson was constantly poor, so he couldn’t have spent much on a hoax costume. If it was, he got the deal of the century.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 11th, 2007 at 10:05 am
jamesrav:

The moving hands? That easily could’ve been done using 60’s technology (keep in mind that the exposed strings in that link would be covered up if this method was used in a covered costume). I’d imagine that such a device could also work on jointed “arm extenders,” but I can’t say that for sure since I’ve never seen such a device in action. I don’t know if you could do such a
device for toes, though I will note that you’d have to be an idiot to think that you could film something with long, stiff arms and non-moving hands without anyone suspecting it of being a hoax (which would explain why a smart hoaxer would think of taking the extra effort
to do such a thing;the same would apply to stiff, non-moving feet).

The guy who faked the “Cardiff giant” had enough intelligence to fake pores and waited two years before uncovering the “giant.” I highly doubt he was the only one who was smart enough to do such things.

On a related note, I recently stumbled across some threads that show costumes with various aspects similar to stuff in the P/G footage for movies and tv shows made before (and during) the 60’s. You can see them here and here.

Granted, I feel that give a little too much credit to Bob Heironimus, but that doesn’t change them being right about the costumes or their bringing up interesting points about the “muscles” in the P/G footage. They also note that Patterson and Gimlin’s recollections have some inconsistencies in them (including Titmus’s notes) and that Heironimus is thrown out for inconsistencies while the other stuff isn’t.

However, I also know that Mr. Morris basically admitted to lying about making a certain type of costume (and got a friend to play along) in order to get cheap publicity for his company on page 37 (chapter 5) of the 1997 edition of “How to Operate a Financially Successful Haunted House” by Philip Morris and Dennis Phillips (a book I doubt most Morris debunkers or supporters have read). The fact that both Morris and Heironimus both described things like using football padding doesn’t mean that they were both in on it, it just means that they both know of ways to fake aspects of the P/G footage.

However, that doesn’t stop the people over there from making other interesting points.
mystery_man responds: July 11th, 2007 at 10:38 am
MrAtomicEmonster- Well, perhaps the effects were available then, maybe some select few could pull off the amount of realism that we see in the PG footage. I won’t discount that, and I am still open to the possibility that this footage was staged. It is pretty telling, however that the footage has withstood 40 years of constant evaluation and scrutiny, some of it by experts from various fields, and yet it still stands the test of time. To this day, it is not definitely clear whether it is a hoax or not. How many movie effects can claim that? Of course you could say that movie costumes presented as the real deal in similar footage could have fooled some people, but I don’t know if they could for 40 years under the spotlight like this.

I tend to disagree that anything I’ve seen from that era of film looks anything like what we see in the PG footage. Maybe some special custom job could have been done, but that leaves the question of whether Patterson and Gimlin had the means to go about such an endeavor. And remember, whether costume specialists say the footage is fake or not, the fact remains that no one has reproduced the level of quality that we see in the film even in this day and age. If it is so easy and all it takes is the right talent, isn’t there some amount of benefit to be had by proving this footage can be done once and for all? Shouldn’t it be easy 40 years down the line, with all of the new technology? I hear a lot of excuses about why it hasn’t been done, but really, why doesn’t anyone do it? If Patterson and Gimlin could, surely someone could do it on a fraction of the budget? Being someone who does not embrace the footage as 100 percent real, I would love to see some evidence like that, yet it has failed to materialize except a laughable attempt to reproduce the walk under laboratory conditions. I look at all the determined hoaxes that turn out looking amazingly shoddy compared to the PG footage and I think it may not be as easy in practice as it is in theory.

I am not an advocate of this footage as you may be thinking, but I do expect to see a concrete example of how this could be pulled off with the budget these two had, with the resources available to them at the time and this has not been adequately demonstrated. No one has come forward and shown how possible it was for PG to do this to such great effect, so the talk of costume making abilities of the time seems as speculative to me as those who claim it must be real. That is intriguing to me. I look at all angles to this debate in as scientific a way as I can. I am not embracing this footage as real, but there are certainly very impressive qualities to it and the suit argument just doesn’t totally add up in some ways for me.

Corrick made a good comment along the lines of this footage has gone all this time and really all it ends up doing is stirring up debate ad nauseam with no real clear answers in the end, as it has for the past 40 years. I think both sides of the argument are at kind of a stalemate here with this one and the trail is somewhat cold. All of this debate and scrutiny has not shed much light on this footage and so it remains somewhat of a curiosity.

I think Ben Radford is right in that we are kind of beating a dead horse here, and we need new evidence. We need at least something of comparable realism with which to compare and yet that sort of footage has not been forthcoming. But I will be honest, with every hoax we see pass by us, the PG footage looks better and better whether it is genuine or not.
Benjamin Radford responds: July 11th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“Few stop to wonder why, if it is authentic, a much better film hasn’t been shot since 1967.”

>You’ve answered your own question. Because it’s impossible to do, because it wasn’t hoaxed.

Huh? This doesn’t make sense. There aren’t better Bigfoot films since 1967 because it wasn’t hoaxed? I wasn’t assuming the film is hoaxed… the question remains: Video and film cameras have gotten cheaper, lighter, and more broadly used than any other time in history. If Bigfoot are really out there, why is the best footage 40 years old?
rbhess responds: July 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
We’ll never solve this. One person sees it and thinks, “guy in a suit” and another person sees the same thing and thinks, “that can’t be a guy in a suit.” I LOVE the Patterson film and always will for that very reason. If it’s real, obviously it proves the existence of Bigfoot. If it’s fake, it’s the best hoax ever perpetrated, hands down. Piltdown Man’s got nothing on the Patterson Film. Forty years later and we still can’t figure it out, because even if it IS a guy in a suit, it’s played so well and so subtlely that we’re swept up by it, skeptic or no. I’m a skeptic and doubt Bigfoot’s existence, and I see many reasons for suspecting that Patterson faked this film. But I can’t help myself from looking at it after all these years and thinking, “maybe…. just maybe”… I’ve said it before and will say it again–Patterson deserves to go down in history either way. As for my reasons why it’s fake/real:Fake: The thing has breasts. Only human females display permanent breasts. An odd characteristic for a Bigfoot species to share with us… though perhaps no odder than walking upright.Fake: The feet. Look like stiff-bottomed shoes to me, when you see the underside of them.Fake: Patterson’s outrageous luck, as someone pointed out earlier. He set out to film a Bigfoot documentary, and found the real thing? Uhhhhh… that’s outlandish.Fake: that the prints found on-site did not match the apparent size of the animal in the film.Real: It’s one damn good suit. Where is this wonderful suit, if it existed? Why hasn’t it turned up? Why can’t anybody seem to make a decent facsimile of it? (At least at a cost that Patterson could have afforded).Real: the mise-en-scene of the whole thing. If Patterson faked this then he missed his calling; he should have been a cinematographer or a film director. The wonderful choreography of it, from the shaking of the camera at the start, to the pan following the subject–smoothed a bit but still clearly held by a shaking, upset hand… it’s brilliant. Could have been faked, sure… but what a job he made of it, if he did.Real: That Patterson went to his death without confession, and Bob Gimlin seems destined to do the same.Real: well… there’s nothing logical or scientific about this, it’s purely subjective—but when I look at that thing in the film, I get an odd feeling that I’m looking at a real animal, not a man in a suit. If it’s fake, that again says something to me about the suit, the guy who wore it, and Patterson as a “director”: that all three were in major top form that day.
Unknown Primate responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
# 1. It just looks like a real animal that lives in the forest to me. It doesn’t scream “human”, like most films do. Instinct, common sense or gut feeling tells me this. Not very scientific, eh?

# 2. It has not been disproven.

# 3. I watch the footage a lot, study the frames, and try real hard to debunk the film. I always end up back at reason # 1. If it ever is efficiently proven to be a fake, so much for my instinct, common sense and gut feelings. Until then…
Tengu responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
It looks just right, the movements are so natural.

And its just what mny BF accounts describe, the creature just strides away.
Ceroill responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
A couple of points often brought up by skeptics that I find curious seems to have a kind of ‘have your cake and eat it too’ flavor. One one hand they point to the lack of good photos/films since P/G as evidence there’s nothing there, and then they also point out P/G’s incredible luck as being suspicious.
That could be interpreted to mean that bf hunters are screwed either way: If you don’t get a pic, then it’s not there. If you do get a pic then you’re a phony. Bad quality pic means hoax, good quality pic means hoax. (P/G being the ‘good quality’ sample)

I think the moral of all this (if you’ll pardon the phrase) is that no picture, movie, or video is ever going to be acceptable to the wider world as real evidence. If it’s an old pic, unless it’s mind bogglingly clear and detailed (meaning better than the P/G), then there will always be ambiguities and doubts about it. If it’s recent there will again always be doubts because of the image manipulation technology we have.

The P/G footage has good points and it has problems. I seriously doubt it will ever be truly resolved one way or the other.
ygor427 responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
ygor427 has an interesting point about the mobility of the legs, but any quick look in the mirror while walking should prove that the same holds true for any of us. The hips and buttocks move much less that the legs under normal circumstances.

That’s true but your butt and thighs always look like there connected. They don’t look like Patty. If they do, you need to go to a doctor ASAP.

All this talk about the muscles makes me think about that other piece of great ape cinema King Kong. In the classic scene where Kong is on top of the empire state building it looks as if Kong’s fur is being blown around by the wind. It’s one of the best looking shots in the movie and was a total mistake. It was caused by the animators fingers pressing in the fur as they manipulated the model. To me, Patty’s muscles look like a similar happy accident. It looks like light and shadow playing with the fur in the folds in the costume.
DARHOP responds: July 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that the Patty footage is NOT a person in a suit….
ygor427 responds: July 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
A couple of points often brought up by skeptics that I find curious seems to have a kind of ‘have your cake and eat it too’ flavor. One one hand they point to the lack of good photos/films since P/G as evidence there’s nothing there, and then they also point out P/G’s incredible luck as being suspicious.
That could be interpreted to mean that bf hunters are screwed either way: If you don’t get a pic, then it’s not there. If you do get a pic then you’re a phony. Bad quality pic means hoax, good quality pic means hoax. (P/G being the ‘good quality’ sample)

If you think that a somewhat shady man filming a super elusive sasquatch while he is shooting a sasquatch documentary with a rented camera (it’s almost as if he knew when he was going to need it) isn’t somewhat suspicious I’ve got some magic beans for sale. It could justifiably be argued that Patterson was in fact in the right place at the right time but to me personally it’s a little suspicious.

The birds of paradise are elusive. They made a documentary about them a few years ago. It was tough filming and it took days to get a glimpse of the birds. Planet Earth filmed the birds later. It was just as tough and the birds were just as elusive but they filmed them. You could tell that some of them were the same species. Shouldn’t bigfoot be in the same boat? After forty years and an explosion of video cameras, shouldn’t people have gotten footage just as good if not better of the same species? This isn’t proof of bigfoot’s non-existence but it does raise some interesting questions.

Roger Patterson is in a peculiar place. The believers remember him as a moronic cowboy who couldn’t have possibly had the brains to construct such a genius work of hoaxing. The skeptics remember him as a charlatan and faker. He just can’t win.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Real: It’s one damn good suit. Where is this wonderful suit, if it existed? Why hasn’t it turned up?

You’re assuming that it wasn’t destroyed after filming was completed. Even if it wasn’t destroyed intentionally, there’s always the possibility that it decayed into an unrecognizable mess.

Try asking a fan of Japanese monster movies about the condition of the suits used for the 50’s and 60’s. If I remember correctly, only the head of the suit used for 1967’s KING KONG ESCAPES is intact, and it’s showing signs of decay. This was a costume stored at professional movie studio under optimum conditions and might’ve changed hands with a private collector. The head of a Godzilla suit from GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER might also exist in this form as well, but my memory is hazy.

The only thing left of the Jabba the Hutt puppet from 1983’s RETURN OF THE JEDI are the eyes; the rest of the puppet melted/rotted/etc into a mess. If you doubt that, either check out the next STAR WARS effects tour or try contacting the people involved in the puppet’s creation. Remember, these were props stored under professional conditions. I highly doubt that a hoaxer would have access to such facilities.

Why can’t anybody seem to make a decent facsimile of it? (At least at a cost that Patterson could have afforded).

Here’s the problem with that: Even if someone did do that, the response would be that they had all this time and a movie to work from, unlike the original hoaxer (Nevermind that the originator of a hoax can start from the ground up). The recreation would be ignored, money would be wasted, and we’d be back at square one. There’s also the matter of duplicating the exact conditions that the film was shot under. Hasn’t Bluff Creek changed over the decades?

However, a Bigfoot specimen wouldn’t be subject to such criticism. This is why many people are skeptical of Bigfoot’s existence: there’s no studied Bigfoot specimen, be it a corpse or a captured live animal.
Ceroill responds: July 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
ygor, save your magic beans. Of course there are questions. There will always be questions. I’m sorry if you got the impression I’m uncritically accepting of everything that gets filmed. Or doesn’t. In my opinion, Sturgeon’s Law applies here as much as anywhere else: 90% of everything is crud. I think he was being optimistic, and it’s closer to 99.98%, but that’s me. However, I do see a possibility (not a certainty) that the P/G footage might, just might, be in that .02 percent.
ygor427 responds: July 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I agree. I would love for the P/G film to be in that tiny percentage but sadly I don’t think it is.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
mystery_man:

To this day, it is not definitely clear whether it is a hoax or not. How many movie effects can claim that?

The closest example I can think of is when the director of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST supposedly had to go to court in order to prove that he didn’t actually film people being killed. I’ve also heard that he had to have the actors make a television appearance. The special features on the American DVD might go into more detail about that. Come to think of it, weren’t there also people who thought that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is real?

Anyway, the biggest problem with this comparison is that since we’re being presented with such great special effects in a movie that we know to be fictional, we (usually) have no reason to believe that what we’re seeing is real. This is especially true when you factor in “making-of” TV specials, books, DVD special features, etc. What’s more likely to happen is for people to misunderstand how the effects were done. That’s why you can find people who might think that all the dinosaur effects in JURASSIC PARK were computer-generated (they were a a combination of anamatronics and CGI) or that all of the shots of the T-1000 in TERMINATOR II: JUDGMENT DAY are computer-generated (some shots involved latex “appliances” and others are actually quick shots of an actor in a shiny foil suit). Watching/listening to the special features on the special edition DVDs of those titles should confirm this.

I do agree that better evidence is needed and that if this is a hoax (like I suspect), then whoever was responsible for the suit did a pretty damn good job.
rbhess responds: July 11th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Atomic:Good point about the suit, except for one thing: yes, after 40 years I wouldn’t expect much to be left of the suit either… but why didn’t it turn up prior to this, when some substantial reminder of it may have survived? It’s actually been more than forty years since the original Godzilla suits were built… but how long did it take them to deteriorate, is the question? But all that’s neither here nor there, really… because yes, perhaps the answer is that the Patterson suit was destroyed soon after the film was made. I’m not sure anyone would want to flush money down the drain like that, but then again, considering the hubbub the film created almost immediately, it’d perhaps be the sensible thing to do.Your other point about the suit, I think, isn’t quite as well taken. If we assume that Patterson could afford to have a suit built that looked pretty decent on camera, then the same thing should be do-able today. You say the expense wouldn’t be worth it, but surely if a nearly-always-broke former rodeo clown like Patterson could lay out the cash, then logically somebody with greater resources could accomplish it easily. I certainly wouldn’t ignore a recreation that looked as good on camera as Patterson’s “suit” does… it’d only prove to me that it could be done, assuming the person or persons in question didn’t have to lay out gazillions to do it. And that would be another nail in the coffin for the Patterson film. And yet the only recreation I’ve ever seen was, I think, a BBC-sponsored documentary where the suit clearly looked fake. As I said, I’m a skeptic. I’d like to see somebody do this, and if Patterson on his own could afford it back in ‘67, some group or individual should be able to afford it now while spending only a modest amount in today’s money. I mean, come on… Hollywood blows more on one daily buffet lunch for an average film set than it should cost to recreate this suit, and yet no one does it. I’d hardly call it a waste. Let’s see it done and then we’ll judge. May not convince the die-hard Bigfoot fanatics, but it’d prove something to the skeptical, such as myself. As for the Bluff Creek setting–who cares if that’s exact? It’s how the SUIT looks onscreen that matters, and that wouldn’t really require exact duplication of the setting itself. As for a Bigfoot specimen, I totally agree, although the fact that a corpse has never been found doesn’t bother me much. I’ve lived in the country most of my life and have never seen a dead animal in the wild. Nature disposes of such things very quickly and very efficiently, and it’s a vast amount of territory we’re talking about out there.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
rbhess:

a nearly-always-broke former rodeo clown like Patterson could lay out the cash, then logically somebody with greater resources could accomplish it easily.

You seem to be assuming he spent it all at once. If this was a custom job, you could’ve taken as long as he pleased and spent money on the suit in small “chunks.” He certainly had enough money to rent expensive camera equipment and to buy 16mm film. Come to think of it, didn’t Patterson make his own saddles? He must’ve had at least some experience with building/modeling materials that could be applied to making a costume if he did.

The only other recreation attempt that I know of was supposedly done in 2004 for a TV station involving Bob Heironimus and a Philip Morris-made costume. I’ve heard claims that Greg Long and Jal Korff were involved as well. I found what seem to be clips from it here and here. Here’s a still comparison that I found. It’s certainly better than the BBC’s attempt, but it does have its problems. The seeming lack of muscle movement seems to mean that the recreators were under the impression that the person in the suit didn’t have muscle-padding and that the muscles seen were the result of muscles showing through a tight suit. Unfortunately, Mr. Heironimus wasn’t in the same shape that he was when he claimed to have been in the suit and they didn’t think of getting someone of a similar build to be in the suit so they could test that. There’s also the lack of arm extenders. And since this was supposedly down for a TV station, we run into the issue of a budget again. There’s also the fact that it’s being presented as a recreation, so the viewer already knows it’s fake, which could lead to a subconscious bias.

A recreation backed by a TV station or movie studio is going to most likely run into the budgetary snags mentioned by corrick and myself. Skeptics won’t do it because a fear of losing money on a recreation that gets poo-pooed and possibly because they don’t know what materials to work with. There’s also the issue of what materials to use: Horse hide? Dynel? Spandex? One of the various types of rubber? Foam? Cloth? Would it be a one piece costume? Multiple pieces? The original hoaxer had the advantage of knowing what materials and style they wanted to work with; a recreator doesn’t. This means testing different suits made from different materials and using different styles, and that costs more money. You might even have to use different actors with different body types for the costumes if you want to be 100% sure about whether what’s seen in the P/G footage can be duplicated or not. Now if someone who wants a recreation decides to take all of that into account and raises the money to do so, then you’re in business. I agree that someone should do this, but I also feel the need to point out why it probably isn’t being done.

As for the Bluff Creek setting–who cares if that’s exact?

Well, there’s the matter of lighting conditions and a similar terrain for the person in the suit to walk on. There’s also the matters of using 16mm film in a camera like the one Patterson used. Film and videotape yield very different results.

I’ve lived in the country most of my life and have never seen a dead animal in the wild. Nature disposes of such things very quickly and very efficiently, and it’s a vast amount of territory we’re talking about out there.

But specimens of animals in your area were studied, documented, captured, and/or killed before. That’s why they’re accepted as existing. Bigfoot hasn’t, and that’s why people are skeptical.
greenmartian2007 responds: July 11th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Who says there isn’t a better motion picture of Sasquatch?

There is…and it’s on the DVD “Sasquatch” Legend Meets Science”…the 1994 video taken by Freeman.

It’s there. That looks real. Much more so than the 16mm P-G film. But it’s done with video, and it looks muddy.

That doesn’t look faked to me.
rayrich responds: July 11th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The fact that we’re even discussing the legitimacy of this footage blows my mind. I don’t know, lets create a suit with breasts and a pulled right quad muscle and find somebody that’s even more ripped than Ferrigno or Schwarzenegger to wear it. Wow, that way you’ll be able to see all the muscles in the back and legs at work. C’mon people, look at it. It’s real! Some country bumpkin like Ray Walton or whatever his name was isn’t going to know the anatomy of a muscular human let alone an ape. I feel like an idiot even having to defending this video.
ygor427 responds: July 11th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I’m surprised that Roger Patterson even knew which end of the camera to point at bigfoot.
Ceroill responds: July 12th, 2007 at 12:06 am
So if Patterson was such a dunce, then I guess it was Gimlin who was the mastermind behind the alleged hoaxing? Cause surely someone as dim as Patterson supposedly was could never come up with that good of a suit, not to mention the plan to carry everything off so amazingly well.
jamesrav responds: July 12th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Atomic, thanks for all the related sites, a person could spend hours and hours becoming a PG expert. The Bob H. re-creation ’still’ shot next to Patty is interesting, since it presumably should be a very good match given they have the ‘original’ to work with. And despite the similarity, for some reason it makes me almost giggle; yet a glance over to the similarly posed, stern demeanor (and rock hard physique ) of Patty to this day gets my pulse going. Is that explained simply by knowing that the Bob H shot is faked, and the other might not be? Or does the Bob H shot kinda look like a padded, chubby, giant muppet character, whereas Patty looks like an animal?

“you’d have to be an idiot to think that you could film something with long, stiff arms and non-moving hands without anyone suspecting it of being a hoax”

In hindsight that’s obvious, but it sounds like Patterson and the ‘expedition’ and everything involved was kind of thrown together. He somehow manages to pull off something seemingly way beyond the scope of his limited (financial and intellectual) abilities?
corrick responds: July 12th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Apparently, many of you did not read my previous post. With today’s technology, given the quality of the original photographic negatives and the lack of documented physical reference points there is ZERO chance of anyone ever definitively “proving” whether the Patterson film was real or a hoax.

To paraphrase an alleged quote from Sir Francis Bacon (see wikipedia), “I’ve found that what most people think is true is very much the same as what they wish were true.” Today we refer to this as confirmation bias.

People who want to believe in Bigfoot will always “see” things in the film that convince them the film is “real.” Likewise, skeptics will always see the same film and spot a hoax.

Debate over the legitimacy of the film is a total waste, imho. Very loud, but still just background noise.
Lyndon responds: July 12th, 2007 at 7:14 am
ygor427 talks about the suspicious ‘luck’ Patterson had. I don’t think he is aware that Patterson had the camera for months and was actually in Washington State searching for sasquatch prior to moving onto northern California in October ‘67.

Patterson and Gimlin were in northern California for about 3 weeks and were camped in the Bluff Creek area for about a week before getting the shot. They rode out daily on horseback up creeks and streams. They didn’t just ’stumble’ across the subject at the first attempt. They spent considerable time in a condensed area diligently looking. An independent observer confirmed that Patterson and Gimlin’s horse tracks were ‘everywhere’ along the many feeder creeks and streams in the area.

How many researchers have the time to do what Patterson and Gimlin did in ‘67 and how many of them actually manage to do what Patterson and Gimlin did? Most have full time jobs and cannot spent time out in the wilderness as Patterson and Gimlin did. In late ‘67 their search for sasquatch was almost a full time event. Compare that the researchers today. Who exactly is doing today what Patterson did in ‘67???

The fact that Patterson used horses might also have been the vital ingredient in his success.

Bottom line is Patterson himself never ever claimed to come across another sasquatch nor even it’s tracks post ‘67. That’s not indicative of a hoaxer or a con artist. Patterson was still searching and even got almost duped into falling for the Bossburg shenanigans as well as a scam involving the Yeti in the Himalayas. His sincerity almost got him suckered.

All of Patterson’s behaviour and sincerity towards the sasquatch question in the years after the ‘67 footage point to Patterson being on the level.

Actions speak louder than words, and all the finger pointing aimed at Patterson cannot wish that away.
Lyndon responds: July 12th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Benjamin Radford wrote:

Oh, for God’s sake, get some new evidence! It’s funny (and a little sad) how Bigfooters cling to this forty years later… I’m sure there will be Bigfoot conferences 40 years from now, and there will be yet more “new” analyses of the P/G film.

Oh for God’s sake, get a new whine for a change. You’re like a broken record.

You clicked into this thread didn’t you? If you’re so fed up with talk about the P/G footage then why come into this thread in the first place? Did somebody put a gun to your head?

Like all scoftics, your near obsession with the sasquatch subject is ridiculous. Find something else to whine about.

Few stop to wonder why, if it is authentic, a much better film hasn’t been shot since 1967.

Few scoftics stop to wonder why, if it is a hoax, somebody else hasn’t managed to come anywhere near equaling it, much less bettering it, since 1967, even though gazillions of them have tried.

Funny that hey?
stormchaser responds: July 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I guess there is the possibility that patty could be a fake. I just don’t think it is if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck than its probably a duck. I’ve never seen footage that made me think I’m looking at the real thing other than this. There is no doubt in my mind that bigfoot is out there. I think it just doesn’t want anything to do with us and who can blame it? I’m sure that one day some guy will get just the right picture or video that they need to confirm that bigfoot is real. Until than we just have to have faith.
sschaper responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
My eyes aren’t as good as they used to be, but while the legs look very real, I can make out the impact shudder in the thighs, the torso, especially the stuffed panties complete with pantie-lines(!) don’t seem real.

I don’t know what to make of it.
ygor427 responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Patterson and Gimlin were in northern California for about 3 weeks and were camped in the Bluff Creek area for about a week before getting the shot.

I know that they didn’t just show up and film a bigfoot but the fact that it took them 3 weeks to do what nobody else has done in 40 years is a little fishy.

How many researchers have the time to do what Patterson and Gimlin did in ‘67 and how many of them actually manage to do what Patterson and Gimlin did? Most have full time jobs and cannot spent time out in the wilderness as Patterson and Gimlin did.

Apparently you only need three weeks to film a mysterious sasquatch. I’m sure they could build up vacation time or go during the summer.

And why would horses help you find Sasquatch? Is riding on a large, loud animal the best way to find an infamously shy creature? I would think probably not.

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt folks.
sschaper responds: July 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Ygor, you can get a lot closer to deer on a horse than you can on foot. Even a tractor is better than on foot. Personal experience.

Horses are herbivores, thus smell safe, four-legged, and help cover up the presence of the people riding them. A horse is not a threat. A two-legged human, or an ATV, -is-.

Then you get these guys on TV wearing headlamps, making all kinds of noise, looking only at a very small spot for one night, using vehicles with combustion engines, and they wonder why they don’t see anything.

They’d have died of hunger a hundred and fifty years ago, on the frontier. They’d be lucky to hit a deer with a car, let alone find an uncatalogued animal.
mystery_man responds: July 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
So it is being argued that perhaps Patterson and Gimiln were clever, connected enough, and had the know how to put together an amazing suit. The problem with this to me is that 40 years have gone by, and I feel Patterson and Gimlin would not be the only ones that would be this determined, resourceful, and skillful to make such a realistic hoax or suit. If such an outstanding costume was made, surely in 40 years these two are not the only ones that could have resources to pull this sorts of thing off. It has been argued on other threads how determined and resourceful some modern day hoaxers are, and yet we have no other footage of this clarity and sheer staying power in 40 years. Why is this? To say that the lack of such new footage is because of lack of means or lack of determination is to directly contradict some of the skeptical arguments on this and other threads, which is that it is doable and that there are doggedly determined hoaxers out there.

So are we to believe that there has been no one out there in 40 years with the will or the means by which to execute a hoax of this scale? Obviously, as has been pointed out by MrAtomicEmonster and some others, a suit like this is not unfeasible and indeed it seems a custom job should be quite easy to put together in this day and age, by someone with the right know how. So where are the attempts, if it is that easy, not prohibitively expensive, and there are plenty of clever hoaxers out there? So it is argued that the suit making skills were available in the 60s, yet no one able to fully outdo the PG footage or come close. Do Patterson and Gimlin outdo them all? I find that hard to swallow.

What about hoaxers willingness to try? I also am very skeptical that a lack of will is keeping anyone from doing it. The 40 years of debate surrounding this should make this a prime challenge for any would be hoaxer, to outdo the PG footage. Wouldn’t that be exactly the kind of attention they crave? I would think that someone out there must have the means and the will to pull off something like this and indeed they would get a lot of coverage if they could, yet no one tries. Is this to be attributed to lack of caring? This seems a bit ridiculous to me. Remember the obvious popularity of hoaxing footage that shows no sign of abating, and I think there is at least as much desire to pull a hoax like that off today as there was 40 years ago.

I feel it is absurd to think that only Patterson and Gimlin, in 40 years, are the only ones with the know how and desire to make this sort of spectacular hoax. It seems to me that there are committed hoaxers out there, the means to make great suits, yet we are still waiting for footage of this quality. I feel it may just not be as easy to pull of this type of phenomenal suit and hoax as it seems to some.
Ceroill responds: July 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am
mystery-man, well said. I could go on, but you said it better than I probably could.
Jean Souetre responds: July 12th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
My apologies for the question, the answer to which is undoubtedly obvious, but how/where can I access the new, enhanced version of the P-G film?
aastra responds: July 12th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
“Apparently you only need three weeks to film a mysterious sasquatch. I’m sure they could build up vacation time or go during the summer.”

Would four weeks have been a more convincing search window? Or maybe five?

If the sasquatch is indeed real and if the sasquatch is indeed just a flesh and blood animal, then you might well see one the moment you step out of your car. Or you might never see one, ever.

There are countless reports of chance sightings of sasquatch. If sasquatch is real, wouldn’t we expect dedicated searchers to also have some success now and then?
MattBille responds: July 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Odds and ends:

It doesn’t bother me that Patterson got so lucky. Someone had to, if the thing was really out there.

On the other hand, it should remembered that that Heuvelmans and Napier both rejected the film.

And the lack of anything nearly as good over the next 40 years bothers me a lot. Ten years, okay, even twenty, but at what point do we say, “This is one hell of a long run of bad luck?”

The thing doesn’t look “quite right” as a living creature to my amateur eyes, but then a duck-billed platypus doesn’t either.

We should be careful about the enhancements. Again, I’m not an expert, but I wonder how much of the data is generated by the enhancement programs and techniques “filling in” the missing details on a figure that was 1.8mm high on the original film. No program or technique can show data that did not exist on the film: it can only approximate or conjecture.

It will always puzzle me why the Patty suit on X-Creatures was so bad. No one will ever convince me that was a sincere attempt to recreate the image in the P-G film.

Bottom line: this film is not going to convince 99% of the relevant scientific and conservationist community that sasquatch is out there. This means that, whether it’s real or not, its value as evidence - “value” meaning the extent to which it affects the world’s thinking - is limited. If Patterson suceeded, his success needs to be replicated, probably more than once. Only then would this film be seen as a turning point in primatology.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
rayrich:

The fact that we’re even discussing the legitimacy of this footage blows my mind. I don’t know, lets create a suit with breasts and a pulled right quad muscle and find somebody that’s even more ripped than Ferrigno or Schwarzenegger to wear it. Wow, that way you’ll be able to see all the muscles in the back and legs at work. C’mon people, look at it. It’s real! Some country bumpkin like Ray Walton or whatever his name was isn’t going to know the anatomy of a muscular human let alone an ape. I feel like an idiot even having to defending this video.

Of course he can; he could’ve reading books and magazines on anatomy, animals, and bodybuilding. He also could’ve looked at himself in a mirror. Hell, this guy studied real gorillas when he made a gorilla costume. More muscled? Why would they have to be more muscled? A pulled muscle? “Patty” is pretty freakin’ mobile for something that’s supposed to have a pulled muscle.

Lyndon:

Bottom line is Patterson himself never ever claimed to come across another sasquatch nor even it’s tracks post ‘67. That’s not indicative of a hoaxer or a con artist.

That could be so. However, his selling the total ownership rights to the footage to various parties does point at him being a con artist.

Patterson was still searching and even got almost duped into falling for the Bossburg shenanigans as well as a scam involving the Yeti in the Himalayas. His sincerity almost got him suckered.

All that proves is that he actually believed in Bigfoot’s existence. Could a believer not try to make a realistic hoax in order to get more believers (not unlike a holy man who fakes miracles for his congregation)?

jamesrav:

And despite the similarity, for some reason it makes me almost giggle; yet a glance over to the similarly posed, stern demeanor (and rock hard physique ) of Patty to this day gets my pulse going. Is that explained simply by knowing that the Bob H shot is faked, and the other might not be? Or does the Bob H shot kinda look like a padded, chubby, giant muppet character, whereas Patty looks like an animal?

I thought the suit Bob H wore was decent, but not perfect. The blurry, seemingly “scanned picture from a newspaper” quality of the picture also makes it hard to compare details to “Patty.” There’s also the problem of the fact that the recreators missed obvious details like the length of the arms, so them neglecting to do muscular details isn’t out of the question. There’s also the fact that Bob H is an older, out-of-shape man, whereas he claimed to have been in shape when he supposedly faked it. I don’t think it was him, but it raises a good point: How can you expect an effect done with a fit, young man to be compared with someone who isn’t either of those things?

If this had been shot in the 60’s using film similar to the P/G footage and it wasn’t revealed to be a hoax, would people say this is real or fake? Would it be argued that this clearly represented an older member of the same species seen in the P/G footage? Sadly we’ll never know.

In hindsight that’s obvious, but it sounds like Patterson and the ‘expedition’ and everything involved was kind of thrown together.

Thrown together? You call something spanning the course of three weeks “thrown together?” He apparently the camera for months, too. Sounds like he had plenty of time for experimentation.

He somehow manages to pull off something seemingly way beyond the scope of his limited (financial and intellectual) abilities?

He could’ve done what Halloween enthusiasts do: Use talent and goods obtained cheaply/for free to create something amazing. A poverty-stricken Japanese artist managed to create a realistic statue of himself using wood and body hair, so it’s hardly out of the question for Patterson to create something realistic on a low budget. Is it out of the question to wonder if a rodeo cowboy would have experience working with leather/saddle-makling? Look what material can be used to make a gorilla-type costume. That link also shows that “arm extenders with moving hands” technology existed in the 40’s!
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
mystery_man:

So it is being argued that perhaps Patterson and Gimiln were clever, connected enough, and had the know how to put together an amazing suit.

I only say Patterson. Considering how Gimlin got screwed over by Patterson over the rights, he’d have more than enough motivation to expose Patterson in order to get revenge (Unless Patterson had some sort of dirt on him). I suppose that Patterson could’ve had someone else help him make the costume, though.

If such an outstanding costume was made, surely in 40 years these two are not the only ones that could have resources to pull this sorts of thing off. So where are the attempts, if it is that easy, not prohibitively expensive, and there are plenty of clever hoaxers out there?

It’s not a lack of resources, it’s the lack of someone thinking to put those resources together. Toho made a great-looking suit for use in HALF HUMAN, but made suits that didn’t look anywhere near as good for KING KONG VS. GODZILLA and KING KONG ESCAPES years later. People from the same movie studio couldn’t match the level of well-made, furred costumes despite having the same resources and special effects department as they did when they did HALF HUMAN.

The fact that the people behind two recreation attempts neglected to replicate obvious (like the length of the arms) also demonstrates my point. I’m also willing to admit that other hoaxers might not be quite as clever as I gave them credit for. Granted, they were pretty clever in their set-up, but they used a manufactured costume. Now imagine if the hoaxers never came forward like they did in this case: “There’s no way someone in a costume could’ve fooled so many people at once! How do you explain the smell? Etc., etc.”

You also seem to be forgetting that alleged photographic evidence shouldn’t be judged by itself; the area shown in the film should be checked for physical evidence as well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there heavy rain the night the footage was shot? And yet Bob Titmus comes back several days later and finds prints that P/G supposedly didn’t know about (the ones leading up to a ledge that “Patty” supposedly watched them from) and thus couldn’t have covered up to protect them from the rain? How is that possible? Also, couldn’t that rain have covered up/destroyed tracks left by someone taking off the suit and leaving the area? This also raises several good questions about the physical evidence at the site. If those questions are correct, then the footage isn’t very credible. In fact, that whole thread raises lots of interesting points about Bigfoot and the P/G footage. It’s an incredibly long read, but it’s worth it (and I say this despite not having read the whole thing).
mystery_man responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
MatteBille- If sasquatch is really out there and this PG footage is real, then maybe some of the other lesser quality films could have been genuine too and in that case we have been unlucky only in that clear footage hasn’t been produced yet. If this is a hoax, then like I said in my earlier post, it doesn’t settle well with me that no one in 40 years has made a decent attempt to outdo it.

So we have here either a real creature that is extremely elusive and has been captured only fleetingly on film, with hoaxes mixed in to confuse matters, or we have a grandaddy hoax that no one is willing or able to outdo in a believable manner. Both possibilities raise problems with me.

On the one hand, I don’t see any evidence for a lack of willingness to hoax and in fact see some amount of ingenuity in some proven hoaxes, yet nothing is as clear or well done as the PG footage. Hoaxers have been at it for as long as this footage has been around, so where are the spectacular pieces of footage like this, especially when the suit technology is available as some have claimed? If this was a hoax, then I would have expected at least several successful hoaxes approaching this quality by resourceful, determined hoaxers over the years. That has not happened, and so saying that Patterson and Gimlin are the only ones in 40 years to pull this off is a less than satisfactory explanation for me. If this is a hoax, surely those two were not the only ones capable of perpetuating this sort of thing. I think a serious debunker should go out, make something of comparable quality, then try to pass it off as the real thing and see what happens. When everyone was convinced to the level of the PG footage, they could come forward and then explain how it was done. This could offer valuable insights and I’d be interested in what came of such an experiment.

On the other hand, if this is a real creature out there, then that leaves the glaring lack of any additional clear footage in 40 years, especially with the ever growing availability and portability of cameras since then. I do feel some of the blurrier films could possibly be real, but I would expect that if this creature is really out there, then at least something approaching PG would have been documented by now. Just as I say that it is suspicious that PG could be the only ones able to pull off this sort of hoax, I also find it suspicious that only they were ever able to get footage of this apparent quality. So I remain at somewhat of an impasse on this one.

I agree with MatteBille that this footage is not going to prove anything one way or another and it seems both camps just become further entrenched in their arguments. In the end, we need additional video evidence of this quality with which to compare, we need more data. I think the PG footage has become more of an oddity than anything else and it will remain that way until something new along these lines comes forward.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 12th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
rayrich:

I goofed up and forgot to provide the URL for a link in my response to your post. Here is the link to notes by someone who studied gorillas while he was making a gorilla suit. Here’s the article it’s from.
Lyndon responds: July 13th, 2007 at 6:07 am
ygor427 wrote:

I know that they didn’t just show up and film a bigfoot but the fact that it took them 3 weeks to do what nobody else has done in 40 years is a little fishy.

It was more than 3 weeks. Patterson had been searching for years and prior to his stint in northern California (which as we know was a FULL TIME dedicated search) he and Gimlin were in Washington State doing wilderness searches with his movie camera. It was when Patterson and Gimlin returned from their prior wilderness search in Washington State (where they came up empty handed) that they heard about the tracks being seen in northern California by John Green and Rene Dahinden. It was these tracks that then persuaded Patterson to shift from his search in Washington to northern California seeing as it seemed like a hot bed of recent activity.

Apparently you only need three weeks to film a mysterious sasquatch. I’m sure they could build up vacation time or go during the summer.

Who does? Who actually spends a prolonged amount of time out in wilderness areas encamped in specific areas and riding around looking on horseback every day? Most of these researchers have jobs. They just haven’t got the time to do what Patterson did in ‘67.

And why would horses help you find Sasquatch? Is riding on a large, loud animal the best way to find an infamously shy creature? I would think probably not.

A horse is a hoofed animal that likely poses no threat to a sasquatch. A horse is pretty quiet animal on most substrates (bar gravel and paved roads) and it covers ground quicker than a person on foot can. As has been mentioned before, perhaps the the horse’s presence overode the presence of Patterson and Gimlin?? Add to that the fact there was a downfall log pile blocking the horses and Patterson/Gimlin from Patty’s view plus a running stream making some noise. All these circumstances add up to make a perfectly reasonable explanation why Patterosn had better ‘luck’ in getting his film than anybody else has. The noise of the stream, the downfall log pile plus the presence and sound (if any) of horses and not human footsteps is probably a set of events that hasn’t been repeated since. All this came together in a unique manner that was a one off happenstance.
Lyndon responds: July 13th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Mattbille wrote:

It will always puzzle me why the Patty suit on X-Creatures was so bad. No one will ever convince me that was a sincere attempt to recreate the image in the P-G film.

The simple answer to that is because they probably realised they never would be able to replicate it and, rather than spending an inordinant amout of time and money trying to, they went with a bargain basement Optic Nerve creation, though what Optic Nerve was doing advertising how poor one of their creations was in a major BBC series is anybody’s guess. Personally I would have been embarrassed to show it. Obviously Optic Nerve thought it was good enough.

The programme itself wasn’t cheap. In other aspects it was a lavish and costly production, typical of the BBC. They don’t usually do things on the cheap. Time and effort was clearly spent in going to a multitude of actual locations in sasquatch history throughout the PNW and Canada. Few other documentaries have done this.

The programme was obviously sold to the executives on the premise that it would be easy to duplicate what is seen in the P/G footage. As time went on and it was found that wouldn’t be the case it’s fairly logical to conclude that rather than ‘waste’ the BBC’s publicly funded budget on something that they wouldn’t be able to pull off they just corners and went for the poor Optic Nerve monstrosity.

The result was howls of laughter.
mystery_man responds: July 13th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
MrAtomicEmonster- What you say about the resources coming together is exactly why I haven’t written off the possibility that this footage could be a hoax. Of course the people capable of doing something like this may not be interested in hoaxing things and those that do want to hoax might not be capable of a costume like this, so it could just be a remarkably rare thing for the two to come together. I can see that line of thinking, and yet 40 years is a still a considerable amount of time for this not to be reasonably realistically attempted again. That is a long amount of time for these things not to come together for some ingenious hoaxer out there and so I wonder what the odds are that Patterson was just fortunate to have all of the factors come together just so to produce a piece of footage that has not been satisfactorily replicated. It’s a numbers game really, so I find it to be odd that nothing up to this point has come together to match this footage in 40 years.

As for my thoughts on the publicized recreations, sure they left out details, but I would think that there are plenty of hoaxers out there with an eye for such details. I also don’t believe that Bob H is the only one who could possibly pull off a decent hoax, as there have been plenty of fit men over the last 40 years. Still, all we get are blobsquatches and blurry footage of things peaking around trees. Even the Freeman footage (also compelling) does not compare to this in my opinion.

I won’t discount it, but neither do I feel 100% comfortable that Patterson pulled this off to such a degree and no one can seem to outdo it in a believable manner or even make a decent attempt of it. I suppose it would be an assumption to say that it is impossible that this was a well put together hoax, but I feel that speculation and assumptions are being made involving the suit theory as well. I am not ready at this point to try and shove everything into a theory of a suit that we do not existed any more than we know if sasquatch exists, nor am I going to wholeheartedly defend the footage as real when there are logical skeptical points being made. More evidence is needed for me to embrace either theory at this point, and certainly more will be needed to sway this debate one way or the other.

I like the ideas that Lyndon had about reasons why this encounter with a sasquatch, if that is what it was, is unique. The horses, the river, the log pile, this all makes sense and could partly explain why more footage like this is not taken of sasquatch if it is a real animal. 40 years is a long time, though and like the suit theory, it’s only a matter of time, isn’t it? If this is real, I still ask the question, why has nothing else like this come about in 40 years? Right now, it seems reasonable to me that whether this footage was a hoax with a suit or the real deal, it seems to have involved many factors coming together just so to form a sort of happenstance situation. Interesting stuff regardless of whether it is real or not. Great input everyone!
Ceroill responds: July 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
mystery-man, again I agree with everything you write. The argument about horses rings good to me as well. I recently saw a similar effect demonstrated on a tv spot about tigers in India. Humans on their own need to be extremely careful if looking for tigers. But if they are riding on elephants, then the tiger just doesn’t perceive the potential threat and you can ride up amazingly close and see the tigers doing whatever tigers do when they’re not being wary. You’re apparently seen as just a bump on top of an elephant. I suspect that the same principle could apply to men on horseback and other wary critters.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 14th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
mystery_man:

Still, all we get are blobsquatches and blurry footage of things peaking around trees.

How many Bigfoot hoaxes have been done on 16mm film? How many show the subject at the same distance that Patterson was away from his film’s subject? Most of the “Bigfoot footage” I’ve seen seem to be on video and digital media as opposed to film stock, which is technology easily available to consumers whereas 16mm cameras and film were more expensive. Video works differently than film (”flattens” depth, doesn’t require developing, etc.).

The thing is, people are looking at the film “in a vacuum”; they’re not looking at the other evidence related to it. Besides the various problems with the physical evidence that I’ve linked to (Titmus finding tracks that should’ve been destroyed in the rain, etc.) before, we’ve had very few comparison attempts to people or people in costumes whenever people examine the footage. John Green shot footage of a 6′ 5″ guy at Bluff Creek, but people seem to be missing the fact that he’s shown to be taller than a slouching “Patty”. How can we have estimates of “her” being near 7 feet tall and over a thousand pounds when this exists? I want to see enlargements taken from a first generation copy of this to see what fine details can still be seen on the man in the Green footage. It’d be a good way to judge whether or not fine details can be reliably seen in enlargements.

What about the documentary that Patterson was supposedly filming for when he set out to examine tracks at Bluff Creek? Did he finish/do any other footage for it? Didn’t he only have two reels of film? I read that if he used 100 foot reels, that’d work out to 4 minutes each at 16 frame per second. There’s no way he could set out to make a documentary that’s only 8 minutes long; he’d have to have perfect takes in order to get a working 8 minute documentary.

Could he have been doing it bit by bit, gathering up money and shooting whenever he had the chance? Sure, but that’s the same argument used by people who support the suit theory. We know Patterson had the camera for months, but how much footage did he shoot using it? If he didn’t shoot any, isn’t that kinda suspicious?
mystery_man responds: July 15th, 2007 at 1:59 am
MrAtomicEmonster- Yes, indeed the surrounding evidence is interesting and I’ll say it again I’m not a 100% proponent of this film as being genuine, for reasons such as this. Like I said before, it is a possibility that a lot of factors came together just so to make a hoax like this possible. I do however see nothing to completely discredit the theory that this could be real footage either. If it was a hoax, though, it was a pretty darn well conceived one that probably involved some amount of luck, so that might be why it is clearly not something that lends itself to being replicated easily.
jerrywayne responds: July 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Here are a few reasons why I doubt the Patterson film is a legitimate film of Bigfoot. (Pardon me if I restate views expressed by others).

!. Doubts surrounding the filming of Patterson’s Bigfoot.

a. Patterson captured the definitive image of Bigfoot after only a few weeks in the field, a feat never before, or since, duplicated by anyone. This suggests the image is uniquely Patterson’s.

b. Patterson was known locally as a Bigfoot enthusiast, a very creative individual, and a con-artist. If we are to be cautious concerning Holmes and his Nessie film, because he may be a “nutter,”then Patterson’s film suffers likewise by what is known of Patterson’s character.

c. Patterson did not take a comparison film of Gimlin retracing the pathway and stride of the “creature”. (Remember, Dinsdale filmed a boat from the same distance to compare to his film of Nessie). If Patterson’s Bigfoot was as large as Meldrum enjoys believing it was, then the idea of a comparison film would have occurred to Patterson as a way to definitively prove the reality of Bigfoot. His omission precludes any truly accurate size estimate for his film subject, and that might have been to his advantage.

d. Patterson’s film is a virtual reenactment of Roe’s story, replete with a retreating, woman breasted, over the shoulder glancing, Bigfoot. I think Patterson believed Roe’s account (up to that time, the best eyewitness account) and merely patterned his own account from it.

2. Doubts concerning the filmed image.

a. As noted elsewhere, the Bigfoot’s buttocks don’t move with its legs. This is a dead giveaway. In fact, one can discern a girdle, or fake buttock, between the waist-line and a line running across the upper thigh.

b. The Hollywood make-up artists interviewed by Charvinsky had no doubt that the image on the Patterson film was that of a man in a suit. No doubt.

c. The cresting head and the shoulders of Patterson’s Bigfoot DO look very much like those of Morris’ gorilla suit.

d. The feet and legs of the Bigfoot seem odd in certain frames. The legs seem to be set too far back from the heel of the foot. One shot of a frame I’ve seen suggests folds on the back of the left leg.

e. The celebrated stride of the Bigfoot, alleged by Krantz to be non replicable by humans, seems immanently replicable by humans. (Interestingly, over the years I have shown the Patterson film to various friends and family, almost all unfamiliar or uninterested in the Bigfoot phenomena. To a person, they all said it was, without question, a film of a human in a suit. They all pointed to the way it walked as a dead giveaway.)

3. Doubts because of the Heironimus revelation.

a. The Heironimus story rings true to me. It rings true to me because of its simplicity. There is no imaginative story of how Patterson created this impossibly deceptive costume that fooled some impressive folks. To the contrary, the Bigfoot suit was of three pieces: a helmet like head, a shoulder and torso piece, and a waist to feet, one piece made perhaps from rubber fisherman waders. If we combine Heironimus’ and Morris’ accounts, then Patterson’s costume of Bigfoot was made from a relatively cheap premanufactured gorilla suit, hair and leather from a dead horse skinned by Patterson, and a helmet.

2. The Heironimus account does what good accounts ought to do. It explains implicitly. Consider the questions raised by others questioning the hoax story. How could the film subject move its head around without creating some tell-tale folds in the “monster-suit”? The answer: Heironimus said the head (a helmet) was detached from the body of the costume (and hence, free to move apart from the torso piece. In fact, one can see that Patterson built up some of the upper back hairs to obscure the neck movement). But aren’t those powerful leg muscles obviously real; look at that contracting calf muscle! Answer: Heironimus said the lower half of the costume was rubbery, like waders. Rubber could mimic muscles at every step and artificially create the image of muscular movement. But look at the animal’s torso, and its short hair, very ape like. Answer: Heironimus said the suit was partially created, he was told, out of hair and leather from a skinned horse. So the end result was a suit made with a corset of short horse hair topped by shoulders and arms taken from a gorilla suit (I surmise).

Once, I believed that Patterson had filmed a real Bigfoot. I remember the day, even now, when I accidentally ran across that Argosy Magazine, in the Commerce Street Newstand, that proclaimed:”EXCLUSIVE! First Photos! CALIFORNIA’s ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN”! I was so excited, I phoned my dad right there and then (as I wondered why mainstream newspapers had somehow missed the news story of the century!)

Today I have serious doubts about Patterson’s film. Once, as a believer, I looked at the film and thought: “How could this not be real!” Now I look at the same film and see too much wrong with it to find it genuine. It looks fake in some important ways. I read Long’s book presenting Heironimus as the third man there on that day at Bluff Creek, and it cemented my realization that I had been taken for a ride for many, many years, from my teen years to advancing middle age, by a part-time rodeo rider from Yakima. I realize I should be angry, but I’m not. After I finished Long’s book, I poured a glass of beer and toasted Patterson. After all, he had created a short piece of film that rivaled Merien C. Cooper’s Eighth Wonder, as far as causing one’s imagination to dance, especially in the mind of a kid, all those years ago. I feel I lost a friend in Patterson’s Bigfoot, but I think I’ve gained in wisdom.

But thanks, Roger, you entertained me and caused me to dream. Not bad, on your budget.
DWA responds: July 15th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
What are my top 3?

Well, I knew that it would take a lot of posts, but that would make it simple for me.

1. Read all the skeptic takes above. In 40 years not a single one of them has been able to hold water.

2. Read all the proponent takes. After 40 years, they still do.

Three? Who needs three?
DWA responds: July 15th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
But of course I needed to add one thing that stuck out in Lyndon’s exchange above: the discussion of horses.

Horses made this happen.

Veteran horsepackers will all tell you one thing: you will see much more wildlife on horseback than you will on foot or in a vehicle. As Lyndon says, most animals just don’t consider horsebackers threatening. (For one thing, humans, who frequently shoot on foot or from vehicles, will rarely, if ever, fire a gun from horseback.)

The proper questions to ask about Patterson’s “luck” are as follows:

1. Who in the years since has dedicated the time to a continuous search, following up VERY recent sightings? (No one.)

2. Who covered as much ground in that time? (Obvious answer given the answer to 1.: no one.)

3. Who did it on horses, continually prepared to draw and shoot when the opportunity presented itself?

Right.

I could add that, if you don’t think that’s a real animal, then you have never seen a real animal. But like I also said: Who needs a top three when the two above will do?
ralph1 responds: July 15th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
When this was made Patterson was about broke. It would take a lot of money for a costume this good and the technology just didn’t exist in 1967.

Skeptics wonder why it wasn’t running. An animal will only move as fast as it needs to get away from what it thinks is a threat.

The number of people that would be in on a hoax would be quite a few and since nobody has come forward, well you can judge it yourself.

Finally, I was watching an enhanced version and there is somthing in the upper right corner that looks like it might be a second creature.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 15th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
DWA:

1. Read all the skeptic takes above. In 40 years not a single one of them has been able to hold water.

How so? Despite being told otherwise, it’s been shown that “the walk” can be done by humans, the technology needed for such a costume existed prior to the 60’s, and that “Patty” is within a human’s height range. Please tell me more; I honestly would like to know.

1. Who in the years since has dedicated the time to a continuous search, following up VERY recent sightings? (No one.)

Patterson had a second expedition in the Bluff Creek. And didn’t the BFRO launch legitimate investigations in their early days? What about the use of infrared equipment in searches for missing people in “Bigfoot country” (Big bipedal apes should be easy to spot and could be mistaken for the missing person) and biologists researching potential prey animals in the field never see Biggy chowing down? They could easily get DNA off “the leftovers”, from hair, etc. and get fame and fortune for proving Bigfoot’s existence. Even if they didn’t see Bigfoot eating the animal they were studying, they’d see indication of an unknown predator and would try to figure out what it was, which would lead to Bigfoot. I’ve heard the old “They’re ignoring it to keep their jobs” line before, but I can’t believe that every field biologist/rescuer ever would do that.

3. Who did it on horses, continually prepared to draw and shoot when the opportunity presented itself?

If you believe that the footage is real, you have to take into account that Patterson and Gimlin said they agreed ahead of time to not shoot Bigfoot if they saw it. If you believe they were both in on it (which I think could be possible since Gimlin’s film rights lawsuit settled out of court), then they would have no reason to shoot. If you believe Gimlin wasn’t in on it, then Patterson merely talked him out of shooting (and could’ve switched his bullets with blanks-and back-when Gimlin was asleep just to be “extra sure”).

But if you really want another expedition on horseback, that’s fine with me. I’d even pitch a fundraising idea to help out/be a nice guy.
DWA responds: July 16th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Atomic: responding to you runs the serious risk of repeating myself for the Godknowshowmanyth time here, but here goes, keeping in mind that I’m going to try not to do that.

Despite being told otherwise, it’s been shown that “the walk” can be done by humans,..”

Well, um, sure. Humans are great mimics. Anyone who stated that it COULD NOT be done by humans, I don’t care who you are Dr. Krantz, was making a hyoooge mistake. (He made many, probably out of frustration that his brethren couldn’t see something remarkable right in front of their faces.) But now I wanna see a human do it on a river bar, looking that smooth, and not on a lab floor, looking, um, stoopid. So do many others who have said that here. Guess what? Ain’t gonna happen; ’cause in 40 years, it hasn’t. (Ben really should get a new whine, shouldn’t he?)

the technology needed for such a costume existed prior to the 60’s…

…as did the technology for going to the moon. We just hadn’t put all the pieces of it together by 1967. ‘Cause if we had, we’d have been on the moon in 1967, right about the time “Planet of the Apes” was done. (The RIGHT way.) That Hollywood did nothing close to Patty in the 1960s says everything you need to know - unless you insist on disbelieving in the sas.

and that “Patty” is within a human’s height range.

Sure she is. Well outside the normal range; and well outside the normal range on every other measurement that has been made, all of them pinpoint accurate. As anyone who took high school math knows, all the relevant measurements can be taken without even knowing the critter’s height; because the critical measurements are ratios, not absolutes. There are no human beings with overall proportions like Patty’s. Period. Many may have one. Some “blessed” among us may have two. Three? Sure, play the lottery. More than that? Please.

One more time (OK, fine, I know it won’t be the last, but I keep trying).

Here’s the proponent case. (The true skeptic case, I might add.)

1. The existence of the sasquatch has long been shown to be a proposition worthy of serious scientific inquiry.

2. No scientist with a solid acquaintance with the evidence can dismiss the sasquatch. No, that’s true. Show me a scientist who doesn’t think the animal exists, and I will show you someone ignorant of the evidence or simply being illogical (as more than one scientist has admitted to being on this topic). Period. Note that all I’m saying here is that anyone who knows the evidence believes at the very least that further research is required. I can’t say the critter exists - until it’s confirmed. But there is too much evidence to ignore, despite the fact that most scientists do.

3. There is copious evidence. The most compelling evidence is not the Patterson film, although that should have been more than enough and only scientific ignorance and groupthink prevented that. But it is where science most glaringly shows its ignorance: the incredible consistency of sighting reports in describing the same animal, across thousands of encounters spanning the continent. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THIS YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS ALL. [hotkey]: RSR! bfro.net; texasbigfoot.org. No skeptic has anything I need to listen to if he/she can’t explain what those people are seeing. All liars? All hallucinators? All misidentifiers? Some one, and the rest the others? Sure, and my name’s Napoleon Bonaparte. (Says here: many people, every year, mistake sasquatch for bears , a much more logical proposition, if one only takes a moment to think about it, than the reverse.) A dozen or so reports have gone up on the BFRO site in the last two weeks. I don’t care what’s up with Matt and his Moneymaker. BFRO regional researchers - and the people who file reports - can’t be tarred with that brush. I want to know what people are seeing. The incompetence and politics of the searchers are commonly confused by skeptics with a case against the animal. I’m getting tired of that.

4. So-called skeptics are required to state their case. Proponents have made their case; so-called skeptics must either counter it, or agree that further research is required. No other logical avenue is open to them. The case they have presented amounts to: there is no evidence. That is no case. (Man, Ben REALLY needs to come up with a new whine. Has he ever reflected on what a waste of his time Bigfoot has been?)

Don’t mean to sound like I’m going off on you there, Atomic. But proponents - together with us true skeptics - get tired of listening to the same old stuff from people who really should get acquainted with what they’re talking about. THEM I’m going off on.
Lyndon responds: July 16th, 2007 at 6:39 am
AtomicMrEMonster wrote:

How so? Despite being told otherwise, it’s been shown that “the walk” can be done by humans,

Who has shown this? People have put on bulky ape-man suits and fake feet and have shown us that Patty’s walk can be duplicated?? Where? Do you have a link to these re-enactments where people in bigfoot suits have walked like Patty along a dried up river bed??

the technology needed for such a costume existed prior to the 60’s,

So why isn’t it evident in the bigfoot costumes seen since the Patterson footage, from Boggy Creek to The Six Million Dollar Man to Snowbeast to Bigfoot And The Hendersons? Why do all their suits look far worse than what we see in the P/G footage? Where did this technology go?

Can you explain that to me?

and that “Patty” is within a human’s height range.

So are some sasquatches. They aren’t all born 8 ft tall. There must be some 6 footers around. Indeed they have even been reported. Patty is far bulkier and massive in thickness than any human being.

If you believe that the footage is real, you have to take into account that Patterson and Gimlin said they agreed ahead of time to not shoot Bigfoot if they saw it.

I’ve never understood this argument. So what? Lots of researchers profess to being either no kill or kill. Why would they shoot, accepting it was real? Patterson thought the footage would prove it and would suffice. He was naive. Not everybody is a born killer and I suspect that many hunters who claim they can shoot anything would probably change their minds when faced with a man like ape creature. In fact allegedly some have decided not to shoot for that very reason, because it’s like anything they had ever had in their sights before. I’m sure most American hunters couldn’t even bring themselves to shoot a gorilla, nevermind a more manlike bipedal primate.

If it was a fake then why on earth would Patterson and Gimlin lie admit they previously agreed to not shoot? That’s digging a hole for their own backs. If it was faked they would have been cleverer to not even broach the subject of ‘previous agreements not to shoot’ and just said that Gimlin didn’t shoot simply because at the time he didn’t feel threatened and juts couldn’t bring himself to shoot it because it looked so humanlike, just as all these other hunters (William Roe for example) say.

If you believe Gimlin wasn’t in on it, then Patterson merely talked him out of shooting (and could’ve switched his bullets with blanks-and back-when Gimlin was asleep just to be “extra sure”).

Impossible. If it was a hoax, Gimlin HAD to be in on it. There is no way around it.

But if you really want another expedition on horseback, that’s fine with me. I’d even pitch a fundraising idea to help out/be a nice guy.

Really? You actually help to raise funds so that somebody can take months off work in a continuous horsebacked search for sasquatch? Wow.

What ideas have you got?
DWA responds: July 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
And as usual mystery_man gives us much to think about.

———————————-

So where are the attempts, if it is that easy, not prohibitively expensive, and there are plenty of clever hoaxers out there? So it is argued that the suit making skills were available in the 60s, yet no one able to fully outdo the PG footage or come close. Do Patterson and Gimlin outdo them all? I find that hard to swallow.

What about hoaxers willingness to try? I also am very skeptical that a lack of will is keeping anyone from doing it. The 40 years of debate surrounding this should make this a prime challenge for any would be hoaxer, to outdo the PG footage. Wouldn’t that be exactly the kind of attention they crave?

——————————-

And there sits my problem with the Legend of the Omnipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH), a scoftical standby long past its expiration date. We have all these hoaxers out there, capable of faking all these animals and all these tracks and all these encounters, knowledgeable of every single nuance that could possibly make a fake easier for the public to swallow….and there hasn’t been anything, in 40 years, to come anywhere close to what was pulled off by a couple of small-time, part-time huckster cowboys.

Really.

One grasps immediately why so-called skeptics never want to phrase it in those terms. Which are the only logical terms, because right there is what happened, if this is a fake. They undercut their own “case” with the same axe they use to undercut P/G. All the evidence anyone could ever hope to want points to one thing and only one: the will to top P/G is out there, and the competition gets faster, hotter, and more intense, um, while I’m typing this sentence. And the mountain of crap grows higher, and the diamond perfection of P/G shines above all. Shoot, Patterson gets a lot of dirt. But who wouldn’t want his monument?

You’d think the genus Scofticopteryx would simply want to say, by gum, we need to get out into the field and show we’re right about this! Rather than rehash 40-year-old lines about a film that looks more like proof with every passing day. But then again, isn’t that what scoffing is about? Polishing the seat cushions of armchairs with the collective buttoxes of the genus Scofticopteryx? (Does someone need someone’s coffee now?)

Ben’s right. 40 years from now there will be skeptical conferences and publications showing more grown men looking foolish walking around with bags strapped to their legs, and “new” skeptical analyses of the P/G film, with “new” claims that the zipper is right, um, THERE, see, hit the “pixillate” button, and with “new” recipes for realistic fake feet, and with “new” conclusions that the film subject cannot be determined with any confidence. (English translation: it ain’t human.)

Maybe science just wants to watch the circus. Yeah, maybe that’s it.
mitchigan responds: July 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Without question, the longest thread in Cryptomundo history.
Ceroill responds: July 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
DWA: Well put.
rbhess responds: July 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Atomic:

I’ve fallen out of the loop here, so hope I’m not covering something that someone else has already commented on, but I needed to respond to a couple points you made in response to me back on July 11th:

You seem to be assuming he spent it all at once. If this was a custom job, you could’ve taken as long as he pleased and spent money on the suit in small “chunks.” He certainly had enough money to rent expensive camera equipment and to buy 16mm film.

The problem I have with Patterson building the suit over time is that it would have been a major “security risk” for him. In other words, the longer he spent on it, the more likely that his secret would have been discovered by some friend/relative or otherwise nosey Nate. (”Hey Bob, what is that thing you’re always fiddlin’ with in the workshop?”) If Patterson had the suit built by someone else, the “built over a period of time” theory is left in even deeper water. I doubt a professional would have had the patience to piece together such a suit in increments whenever Patterson could afford to pay him/her… and in any case, again—it makes it more likely that the secret would have gotten out. Of course none of this proves a thing… maybe Patterson DID piece together the suit over time, I dunno. Or maybe he did order the suit built. Maybe he had resources to funds we don’t know about, or maybe it was just great luck for him that he came up with a suit that looked good on film (from a distance anyway) on his first try. Let’s remember also that it’s unlikely he filmed “test footage” of the suit. Again, that would have been a “security risk”… not only in that he may have been seen or found out, during his test shoots… but also, such footage would have had to have been developed somewhere, and that would have gotten out, I’d think.

Remember, I’m a skeptic on this thing–my inclination is to believe that Patterson faked this. But I have to be logical about it too. Logically it would have been far more preferable, from Patterson’s point of view, to get the suit made fast and as secretly as possible. Nevertheless, I agree with you—this could have plausibly been done. I just find it to be another oddity in this wonderful hoax (if such it is) that Patterson managed all this A) fast, B) on a tight budget and C) in total secrecy. More reason for me to say that if it WAS a hoax, Patterson still deserves our unqualified applause.

By the way, I’m not sure I mentioned this before or not, but have you ever noticed how, in the still photographs (particularly the one you cited to me) it looks as though there’s a sort of “depression” in ‘Patty’s’ lower arm, that looks all the world like the beginning of an “arm extension” in an ape suit? I can never spot it when the film itself is run, but it’s clearly there in the stills.

I still say it’s high time someone do a careful recreation of Patterson’s film to show it could be done. I still say if Patterson could do it on a limited budget, then someone today ought to do it, and yes, on 16mm film. As for Bluff Creek, my point was that it we needn’t film such a thing AT Bluff Creek to convince me that Patterson could have faked his film. Yes, shoot it in a very similar setting, and match the lighting and so on as much as possible… but there’s no need to be exact as to the locale. I’d be convinced regardless. So would a lot of people, I think.

A last point. I think I’ve noted in this thread that there’s some question as to whether Gimlin was in on this thing. Sorry, but he had to be, if you think about it. Your theory (facetious, perhaps?) that Patterson could have switched blanks for Gimlin’s shells (and back again) is–sorry–just plain silly. If I were the guy in that suit, I wouldn’t want to trust my life to such cloak and dagger shenaningans. I wouldn’t go near that suit unless I was sure that NOBODY had even a chance of suspecting I was the real thing, and shoot me. If I knew I was going to be “performing” for two guys with guns—only one of whom was in on the hoax—there’s no way I’d do it, no matter what promises Patterson made to me about “switching ammo”. No no. If there’s a guy in that suit, then Patterson and Gimlin both had to be in on it. If there weren’t blanks in Gimlin’s gun, there’s no way in the heat of things that Patterson could have guaranteed that Gimlin wouldn’t shoot. And as I say, the “blanks” theory for me is too outlandish. No, Gimlin had to be in on it. I highly doubt anyone would have risked their life on such a silly stunt. And I doubt Patterson would have taken such a chance at the thing turning into a comic tragedy. If hoax this was, then Gimlin knows it’s a hoax. Maybe someday soon he’ll come clean.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
DWA:

Well, um, sure. Humans are great mimics.

That’s nice, but people used to say that it was impossible. My pet theory is that Patterson and Gimlin their creation’s walk off of Heironimus because he walked in a weird way. Years later, he watches the footage, hears a wisecrack about it walking like him, and something clicks in his head. Vowing revenge for “being made fun of” by Patterson and Gimlin, he decides to get revenge by exposing them as hoaxers. So he reads up a bit on costumes and clown shoes in his free time and goes public after the Romney thing clears up. That could explain why his story keeps changing; he’s trying to match up with what others said to sound “more credible.”

But now I wanna see a human do it on a river bar, looking that smooth

That’s reasonable; I actually brought up the fact that the recreation attempts weren’t done on terrain similar to Bluff Creek earlier and someone else who felt that the P/G footage seemed real said that wouldn’t matter. Hopefully the recreation team won’t forget to let their actor practice walking in the suit or that using an older, out of shape in a recreation of what supposedly featured a young, fit man is a bad idea. It’d be like asking Arnold Schwarzenegger today to try lifting what he could do at the peak of his bodybuilding career.

as did the technology for going to the moon. We just hadn’t put all the pieces of it together by 1967.

Exactly. That’s what I’m saying about the P/G footage; they put the right pieces together. The difference is that instead of trying to second-guess Patterson like recreators would have to, NASA has access to all of their original data and blueprints and can recreate their past successes. Then again, Toho had everything they needed to recreate the level of hairy costume they had done for the movie HALF HUMAN and couldn’t reach that level when they did movies about King Kong.

That Hollywood did nothing close to Patty in the 1960s says everything you need to know

People forget that movie studios have to pay for props, sets, multiple cameras, film, union fees, catering, actor’s fees, crew fees, lighting, etc. That eats up an effects budget, especially if it isn’t planned properly. Patterson wouldn’t have to pay all those fees. Also, movie costumes are usually shown at a closer range, under studio lighting, on stable/well-developed film. As I said before, the costume only has to look good enough to the executives to agree to let the movie get released. I’ve noted before that costumes with aspects of what can be seen on Patty existed prior to/during the 60’s.

Sure she is. Well outside the normal range

Green’s friend in the comparison footage is taller than Patty is; you can tell by the tree knot they both walk under.

and well outside the normal range on every other measurement that has been made, all of them pinpoint accurate.

The mistakes in judging the size of things in various Nessie and Champ photos show that mistakes can be made with measurements. Another good example can be seen in the case of “Princess Anastasia.” Her facial details measured up with those shown on pictures of the Princess. But the DNA test showed that she wasn’t related to the Russian royal family in any way.

There are no human beings with overall proportions like Patty’s. Period. Many may have one. Some “blessed” among us may have two. Three? Sure, play the lottery.

If Patterson happened to use a person with those proportions for his film, then obviously Patty is going to have those proportions as well. If he used someone else to play Patty, then Patty would show their proportions on film.

Even if we ignore the fact that people studying the footage haven’t compared their results against footage of people in costumes shot under the same conditions, there’s the problems of the supposed rain that should’ve washed away the prints before others saw them, the amount of film they had, the fact that a creature with human-like feet has toes that are close together (human toes get spread out if one goes barefoot for long periods of time; there might’ve been some other issues with the prints themselves, but I don’t remember off the top of my head). There’s also been claims that some of the “muscles” are moving in a way that’s only possible if they weren’t attached to bones. If you can show that any of those are wrong, please do so.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 16th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Lyndon:

Who has shown this? People have put on bulky ape-man suits and fake feet and have shown us that Patty’s walk can be duplicated?

I definitely know that Bob Heironimus did without a suit and I’ve heard references to someone doing it in a lab setting that may or may not be a different person (If anyone can clear that up, please do). If you do enough people-watching, you’ll see people walking like that, too.

I’ve only seen the “Bob H recreation” in a semi-animated still frames version on Youtube, so I can’t vouch for how good the steps are. I would like to see a recreation done in the manner that you suggest, though.

So why isn’t it evident in the bigfoot costumes seen since the Patterson footage, from Boggy Creek to The Six Million Dollar Man to Snowbeast to Bigfoot And The Hendersons?

It’s due to a couple reasons. The top reason is the people in charge of the production. If it looks good enough to them, it gets used. This has some good examples of producer follies in action. To them, Bigfoot is just a “big, hairy guy with large feet” and there’s tons of room for interpretation. It doesn’t have to look 100% real, it just has to work for them. Also, those suits weren’t filmed under the same conditions and distance as the P/G footage.

Why do people poo-poo old gorilla suits despite the evidence that they show more advanced features than they’re given credit for? Because they usually focus on the face and chest of those costumes, which were often designed to look more “scary” than realistic. Since they don’t look exactly like a real gorilla, our brains immediately brand them to look fake instead of appreciating the finer details.

Patty is far bulkier and massive in thickness than any human being.

You’re forgetting that costumes can disguise one’s true size. A person in a thick coat and snowpants is going to look bigger than they would in normal clothing.

I’ve never understood this argument

I only brought it up since it was asked by another poster. Others feel that it’s a little suspicious that two men searching for proof of Bigfoot’s existence wouldn’t try to get definitive physical proof. Others find it suspiciously close the Roe sighting.

I’m sure most American hunters couldn’t even bring themselves to shoot a gorilla, nevermind a more manlike bipedal primate.

What about all the arguments that Bigfoot hoaxers would risk getting shot or hunting accidents? It could be possible that Patterson and Gimlin wouldn’t fit that mold, but there are other problems with what happened at Bluff Creek.

If it was a fake then why on earth would Patterson and Gimlin lie admit they previously agreed to not shoot? That’s digging a hole for their own backs.

Maybe they counted on getting enough Bigfoot proponents to side with them. If so, their faith was well-placed. If they said they shot at it, they’d probably have to show it on film. Doing so would require well-placed explosives to show the bullets hitting stuff (which would leave evidence) or using live ammo and risk killing the guy in the suit. If they claimed to hit it, they’d need blood packs and an excuse as to why they didn’t collect samples of blood and fur for analysis.

Impossible. If it was a hoax, Gimlin HAD to be in on it. There is no way around it.

I have heard theories on the matter that may or may not work, but I’m inclined to agree with you on this.

What ideas have you got?

I think people should rework the concept used in the BFRO’s investigations into a haunted trail.

At it’s most basic level, all you’d need are a wooded area, fake footprints, a “nest,” broken branches, fur, appropriate lighting, some talented storytelling guides, and at least one Bigfoot costume. This should be done with the help of a charity/donating some of the proceeds to charity. That way, you’re entitled to free ad space and you show that your efforts aren’t wasting money since you’re giving part of the proceeds to charity and the other half to scientific research (Maybe you’ll luck into a new discovery while looking for Bigfoot, like Rhines’ last Loch Ness expedition). Also, you can gauge customers’ reactions to see how well people can estimate things when they’re surprised.

There are too many other details to cram into one post. The Philip Morris book that I mentioned earlier does a great job of explaining things; you can check it out at a library instead of buying it.

Also, if Bob Gimlin really didn’t hoax the footage, don’t you’d think he’d jump at the chance to prove himself? The man is said to still work with horses, so why not ask him for some? There’s bound to be at least one other person who believes in Bigfoot and owns at least one horse, so find ‘em and get ‘em involved. It’d probably be a lot cheaper than renting horses at full price.
sasdave responds: July 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
As costumes do degrade; but, not those fine creatures in question here. I seen the Patterson footage after I had my experiance with at that time a unknown creature. The question of 3 reasons this footage is the best proof or not…
(1)the first time and many after I seen this footage it was badly focused, chopped and mocked.
(2)the curls of the hair could be saw as a possible zipper.
(3)the footage was shorter then 3 second and disbelief was intended.
Reasons to believe…
(1)The horses reaction to the sasquatch.
(2)The ease of movement and the upper body turn as the neck was unable, due to body type.
(3)The skull shape and the movement of her breastly bits.
…Okay there are more then 3 for then against; but, words or pics just don’t always get the eyes to open to reality. Well I mean when I’m in the forest I will know or feel its’ presence. I have to remind myself when on these blogs that there are many deceived people out there and with knowing part of the truth of these creatures existance one realizes why they shy away from the little ones with big heads. Also I never planned seeing one of these creatures and it saddens me that hellywood puts them all off as monsters. One thing for sure if they were evil creatures and didn’t exist, that huge creature could of grabbed either me or my bro many times for it’s dinner. Too, which it didn’t and to this day I have not seen anyman even on stilts take 3 steps to cross a 30 some foot road. Believe in Sasquatch or not as I do believe for even more reasons as truth is usually hidden even in the forest.
DWA responds: July 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Atomic: gotta cherrypick, I’m at work.

“[Well, um, sure. Humans are great mimics.] That’s nice, but people used to say that it was impossible.”

As I said: I don’t count humans’ mistakes against the animal. As I also said: no one, don’t care what his qualifications, should have made a mistake like that. Those “people” were clearly wrong. So what? There’s P/G. If it’s real, no one cares what those “people” say, or think, or said, or thought. Least of all me.

“That could explain why his story keeps changing.”

Nope, Occam says there’s an easier explanation; he’s lying to get his 15 minutes of fame. Hieronymous was about as involved in this as I was. Occam says so. Meanwhile, there’s P/G. If it’s real, who cares who Bob H. even is? Least of all, me.

“Exactly. That’s what I’m saying about the P/G footage; they put the right pieces together.”

Anyone who knows anything about P, or G, knows that they were voted Least Likely In Their High School Class To Pull Off Anything Like This. And to say they weren’t in on it, that they were the ones who got hoaxed, layers improbability on improbability. One of the critical skeptic mistakes - particularly when one looks at the closest anyone’s come to P/G despite quantum technology leaps in 40 years - is presuming hoaxers are good enough to pull stuff like this off. Evidence indicates, well, no. Meanwhile, there’s P/G. They didn’t hoax it; and they HAD to hoax it or it wasn’t hoaxed. I hate Catch-22s like that.

Proponents did all they had to do when they said: that’s an ape. Debunk it if you can. So far, nothing but failure on that count. And skeptics get no points for throwing mud pies at the wall in the hope that one sticks. They have to show, PLAUSIBLY, how it could have gotten done. Not just bits and pieces of it - the whole enchilada. They have to show, step by step, how every single bit of it got done. They’re shirking.

“People forget that movie studios have to pay for props, sets, multiple cameras, film, union fees, catering, actor’s fees, crew fees, lighting, etc. That eats up an effects budget, especially if it isn’t planned properly. Patterson wouldn’t have to pay all those fees.”

Yes, he would have. To get something like this done, yes he would have. Through his nose, he would have, this guy who had to RENT his camera and BORROW his horses. rbhess has the right idea; Patterson is among the great producer/directors of all time if he pulled this off. And being that costs money. Ask any one of the great producer/directors. This did not get done without tons, OODLES, of dough. Period. Money, when it comes to this, makes the world go ’round. No fair for skeptics to postulate something as implausible as history’s greatest hoax going off for pennies. Not unless they can prove it, invoice by invoice. That film says: I’m an ape. English translation: if I’m a fake ape, you can’t pay for me.

“I’ve noted before that costumes with aspects of what can be seen on Patty existed prior to/during the 60’s.”

Not good enough. The whole thing has to come together, as I say, invoice by invoice. And trust me, it stretches credulity far less to simply go with the ape.

“The mistakes in judging the size of things in various Nessie and Champ photos show that mistakes can be made with measurements.”

Nope. Not here, they can’t. Remember what I said: you don’t even have to know how big Patty is. All you have to do is ratios, and the measurements for those virtually cannot be botched, because you look at the figure and they’re right there. This is why no one’s been able to confidently assert that’s a human. The proportions, quite simply, say there’s no way it is.

And Princess Anastasia and the pretender? Both homo sapiens, as the measurements clearly showed. In other words, not a good example. We’re not trying to show she’s Patty of the Bluff Creek Patties and not the blueblood Hampton Patties. We’re trying to show what species she is.

“If Patterson happened to use a person with those proportions for his film, then obviously Patty is going to have those proportions as well.”

And here you have the most improbable domino in the whole stack. Let’s make this quick. For Patterson to “happen to” find a person that outlandish - one probably never has existed - would be like you winning the lottery, by guessing a number, not even knowing the number scheme in the lottery. It’s that impossible. Sorry, imPROBable.

What it comes down to is this:

1. Skeptics have to show, plausibly, how this got done.

2. They can’t cherrypick. They need to show how all the 10,000,556 pieces of the puzzle fit together, in sequence. They need to show who was involved, precisely when, and precisely how. All stories have to check out. Never been done, never will be. To say that this was a fake, without even the first beginnings of that level of homework, is not being skeptical; it’s being credulous and naive.

3. The film says, over and over again: I’m an ape. That’s all the case proponents need to make. Skeptics need to debunk it. They have not even started that task yet. It’s been forty pazoombah YEARS, ferpetesake. When are they gonna get serious?

Why don’t they just go, OK, let’s do some field research and find out who’s right here? Now THAT would be skepticism anyone could be proud of. Even me.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Rbhess:

In other words, the longer he spent on it, the more likely that his secret would have been discovered by some friend/relative or otherwise nosey Nate.

I don’t know if he had a basement or attic at his place, but he could’ve worked on it in those places if he did (I suspect that his wife was in on it) during times when visitors weren’t likely to come in order to avoid detection. After all, he was strapped for cash/without a steady job, so the idea of him needing to “keep himself busy” wasn’t unusual. Depending on what stage of construction the suit was in, he could’ve given any number of excuses (“It’s something for the next rodeo,” “I’m trying to make a fur coat,” etc.).

Let’s remember also that it’s unlikely he filmed “test footage” of the suit.

It wouldn’t surprise me if he just had the person walk around while he peered through the camera’s viewfinder. This could be done indoors at first and probably outdoors when they were out of state. They would’ve had more than enough time to scout out a safe place to shoot without fear of interlopers.

Patterson managed all this A) fast, B) on a tight budget and C) in total secrecy. More reason for me to say that if it WAS a hoax, Patterson still deserves our unqualified applause.

He could’ve boosted his budget by trading in scrap metal, pawn shops, consignment stores (possibly using things obtained from “dumpster diving”), squirrel tails (no, seriously), recycling cans, etc. Nobody would bat an eyelash if “strapped for cash” Patterson was seen trying to raise money.

By the way, I’m not sure I mentioned this before or not, but have you ever noticed how, in the still photographs (particularly the one you cited to me) it looks as though there’s a sort of “depression” in ‘Patty’s’ lower arm, that looks all the world like the beginning of an “arm extension” in an ape suit? I can never spot it when the film itself is run, but it’s clearly there in the stills

I never noticed that before, but I think I can see it. I have a mixed track record with those things; it’s like one of those “Magic Eye” illusions. Besides, it’ll just be more fuel for the “suit fold/padding vs. muscle/image artifact” debates.

A last point. I think I’ve noted in this thread that there’s some question as to whether Gimlin was in on this thing. Sorry, but he had to be, if you think about it. Your theory (facetious, perhaps?) that Patterson could have switched blanks for Gimlin’s shells (and back again) is–sorry–just plain silly. If I were the guy in that suit, I wouldn’t want to trust my life to such cloak and dagger shenaningans.

Ah, but who said that Patterson would tell the actor? All kidding aside, the theory is silly and I’m pretty sure Gimlin was in on it. That settling out of court business reminds me of what happened the first time Michael Jackson got sued for, well, you know…

Oh and check out these links. I think all three offer some interesting parallels to discussions of the P/G footage and Bigfoot.

So what would happen if Gimlin and/or Patterson’s widow confessed to the hoax? Would people believe them or assume that pressure from skeptics made them change their story?
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
DWA:

Can you prove they didn’t have talent? Patterson was a good artist, as shown by his “Roe sketch.”

Proponents did all they had to do when they said: that’s an ape. Debunk it if you can”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You’ve got to show why a plus-sized, bipedal ape that somehow manages to avoid detection for hundreds of years despite having people around the world looking for them with modern technology is far less extraordinary than a man in a costume fooling people. “It looks real” doesn’t work. If it did, David Copperfield would prove magic is real.

Yes, he would have.

He’d have to pay union fees? He used natural lighting, which is free (and not always the best choice for film). Bringing your own lunch isn’t catering and it’s cheaper than ordering a giant cold cut platter.

Patterson is among the great producer/directors of all time if he pulled this off. And being that costs money.

No, it takes talent. My proof? NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

…something as implausible as history’s greatest hoax going off for pennies.

How much did “Surgeon’s photo” cost? Nobody’s replicated it. A quick look at the original, uncropped version shows that it’s far from being monster-sized and this makes a good case for it being a hoax.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 17th, 2007 at 12:04 am
DWA:

All you have to do is ratios”

If I show you a picture of a lacrosse glove, you’re going to get ratios/measurements for the big glove instead of the normal hand inside it.

Both homo sapiens, as the measurements clearly showed.

They also “clearly showed” that their facial features “matched up”. It’s easy to see someone arguing that it simply can’t be a coincidence that two different people would match up that way. DNA testing proved it so.

They need to show how all the…pieces of the puzzle fit together

You need some conclusive DNA evidence. Zoologists can get DNA samples from monkey feces, but can’t get it from suspected Bigfoot feces? How come techniques used to find/study/ID animals never work for Bigfoot?

To say that this was a fake, without even the first beginnings of that level of homework

I can say the same for those who say that it’s real based solely on looking at the film instead of looking at the issues with the physical evidence at Bluff Creek.

MKD’s stuff doesn’t count since his results haven’t been verified by a third party. For all we know, that was a “touch up” job like the Loch Ness flipper pictures. There’s also this issue.

Why don’t…do some field research

They did. See also: Tom Slick.
mystery_man responds: July 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Wow, too much to really respond too here. I’ve been gone for a couple days with my family and busy surviving earthquakes over here in Japan. I’m ok!

One thing that I think the skeptical side has to avoid doing is what I call the “coulda woulda shoulda syndrome” which is something that proponents indulge in too. Patterson might have done that or might have done this and so on. I think there is some pretty wild speculation on what Patterson might have been capable of without any hard evidence that any of it really ever happened. Heck, he might have had some rich uncle who left him a fortune and a suit making business too. Or maybe he trained an odd looking gorilla to walk upright. He “could have” done a lot of things. We could go on and on on what he “could have” done, with only our imagination as the limit. Skeptics often criticize forteans or proponents for too much implausible speculation without proof and I say skeptics should be careful of that very same thing. I’m all for theorizing, but I get the feeling that sometimes skeptics think their unsubstantiated claims are more legitimate than proponent claims no matter how far fetched they may sometimes be. Some of the skeptical theories being made here simply don’t have any more evidence than the proponent theories and involve various factors that we have no way of knowing were ever in place, let alone come together just right. Occam’s Razor, folks. We could theorize all day on how a hoax could be made and I think every scenario could be supported by skeptics because hey it “could’ve happened”. I say hey, there “could be” a creature out there too, and that “could be” what is in the film.

I am a scientific person, and as such I want more facts here from both sides. If a suit like this is possible, I want to see how it was actually done by Patterson rather than a studio, and not merely how it “could’ve been” done. If Patterson could’ve had, say a basement or attic to work on this seemingly unreproduceable suit, I want to see this place, to know that it exists outside of the realm of speculation and how it fit in with the other claimed factors that allegedly made a hoax possible. If it was a real sasquatch, I want to see more physical evidence other than just this footage and I definitely want more footage to compare with. “Coulda woulda shoulda” only goes so far. I am an open minded skeptic, so I appreciate that sort of input, but what I want is more facts as they pertain to this case and these seems to be somewhat lacking on both sides here. Conjecture is conjecture, whether you are a skeptic or not. To scientifically approach this, we have to try and verify the hypotheses we are making, and I think that is going to be hard with just this video to go on. Lots of good ideas being put forth here, but nothing fully tangible.

In the end, we have a compelling video that has been stirring controversy for years and years with no end to the argument in sight. I feel both how Patterson could’ve made a suit and any other evidence surrounding the case have been blurred by the passage of time and no new leads have been forthcoming. All we have are hypotheses and what “could’ve” happened on that fateful day and I feel the trail has gone somewhat cold. In 40 years, I can easily imagine this same debate continuing (why do I get the feeling that a hoax like this still won’t have been adequately pulled off?). I think Gimlin’s wife or Patterson’s widow making a claim to a hoax would be interesting new info, but I also think that even then it would have to be verified as well. A person can admit to a crime and still need evidence to prove it. I don’t want the convenient answer, I want the truth, whatever that may be.
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Atomic: lots of agree; lots of agree-to-disagree. But some things to talk about.

Can you prove they didn’t have talent? Patterson was a good artist, as shown by his “Roe sketch.”

That’s like saying I’m a great director because I can point and shoot a camera. If this was a fake, much more was involved than that. Most “talented” people wouldn’t have a shot at pulling this off.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You’ve got to show why a plus-sized, bipedal ape that somehow manages to avoid detection for hundreds of years despite having people around the world looking for them with modern technology is far less extraordinary than a man in a costume fooling people.

Not really. The film looks like an ape; I don’t think proponents need to prove that any more than they have. What skeptics have to prove is that a hoax so extraordinarily complex as to be flatly beyond any person known to have had any possibility of having anything to do with it could be more likely than a simple ape that has had, compared to most other species, virtually NO ONE looking for it - except the great numbers who have seen one and can’t get anyone to believe them or to follow up. As I have frequently said: if the sas exists, he is hiding, pretty much, in plain sight. Not the first time that’s happened. (That multitudes are fulltime searching for the sas with sophisticated equipment is something that proponents and true skeptics alike are getting really tired of saying: wrong wrong wrong. Virtually no one is, using virtually no time, and virtually no equipment. Period.)

He’d have to pay union fees? He used natural lighting, which is free (and not always the best choice for film). Bringing your own lunch isn’t catering…

Two insignificant cost items, check! Compared to the real stuff in a real movie budget they scarcely merit mention.

If I show you a picture of a lacrosse glove, you’re going to get ratios/measurements for the big glove instead of the normal hand inside it.

Right. Now you have to either (1) write me a letter and pick up a penny from the floor with that lacrosse glove or (2) show me how the same idea could get something that moves like the critter that, it says here, TOTALLY fills that suit.

[Proponents] need some conclusive DNA evidence. Zoologists can get DNA samples from monkey feces, but can’t get it from suspected Bigfoot feces? How come techniques used to find/study/ID animals never work for Bigfoot?

A fair question. But proponents at least have a ton of evidence. As mystery_man points out, so-called skeptics don’t have a nail to hang their improbable suppositions on. And as I’ve said, you can’t toss mud pies at a wall, hoping one sticks, and then talk about what the proponents have to do. Remember: the sas exists, or not, regardless what ANYONE thinks. Mainstream zoology has only one thing compelling it to search for the sasquatch: how stupid they’re all going to look if it’s confirmed. As I’ve said: if he’s hiding, it’s in plain sight.

I can say the same for those who say that it’s real based solely on looking at the film instead of looking at the issues with the physical evidence at Bluff Creek.

On that we couldn’t agree more. All I’m saying is: that sure looks too real for any supposition I’ve heard about how it could have been faked. Give me a PLAUSIBLE fake scenario and I’m all ears.
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Atomic:

…something as implausible as history’s greatest hoax going off for pennies…How much did “Surgeon’s photo” cost? Nobody’s replicated it. A quick look at the original, uncropped version shows that it’s far from being monster-sized and this makes a good case for it being a hoax.

That wasn’t even good. The youtube sas fakes being shot today beat it by miles, without trying. When I first saw that - as a small child - I thought: that picture was shot in a bathtub. That it ever fooled anyone says Lincoln sure was right about “some people.” P/G, if it’s hoaxed, is light years beyond. As rbhess says so rightly: Piltdown Man has nothing on P/G. Nor does any other hoax I have ever heard of.

Unless, of course, it ain’t one.
mystery_man responds: July 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
While I am here, I might as well give some of my skeptical thoughts on the footage relating to the suit theory.

One thing I think that can be a powerful influence is people’s perceptions of what they are seeing, and what they are being told they are seeing can have a profound effect. This was brought up on the lake monster threads a bit. If someone sees an anomalous picture of say, a log, and told that it is a log, they will probably not question that. but if you insist that it is a lake monster, then even if they don’t completely buy it they will look at the picture in a different way, poring over it and trying to figure out if it indeed is a lake monster. this can apply to footage as well.

Obviously I am not fully convinced that PG was hoaxed, but this matter of perception cannot be easily denied. If this same footage was released and described as footage from a movie, I am fairly sure that many who defend this video might accept it as a well done suit. But since it is claimed to be real, we look at it in a different way, so the same things we would accept as a suit under different circumstances now become compelling evidence of a real creature. I am fairly certain that you could do the opposite and claim that a photo of a real animal, say a lion, is an animatronic animal and people would believe that. Since sasquatch is not a proven animal, I can definitely see the merit in at least considering this possibility along with everything else.

The same thing goes for gorilla suits. A lot of people say they look fake, but that is usually when they are portrayed in movies or sold in costume shops. But put one in some bushes and suddenly it is being discussed on this site as possibly the real deal. It is all about perception and context. Of course, the PG footage is in a league of it’s own and I think it could be genuine, but these are things I find myself pondering.
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
mystery_man: it’s well to ponder those things. Because they do indeed cut both ways, as happened (in the other direction) with P/G.

There is no question in my mind about this: the scientific community came to the P/G film PREPARED TO SEE A MAN IN A SUIT. Not only that: most all of them had professional blinders on that would act to effectively prevent them from seeing a North American ape. Those, and only those, factors are why they could not take it seriously. The public - precisely the mechanism you are talking about - took its cues from them. Everything you have heard skeptically charged against this film - look at the butt; that’s the zipper pull right there; that walk is just funny; an animal wouldn’t behave that way - stems not from objective observation, but from pre-priming to observe a fake, and to carefully create, in one’s imagination, things that just are not there. Or at the very least not necessarily true, or false, but postulated by people with blinders on as being one, or the other.

I talked about this with regard to the latest Manitoba Man (in a hoodie, of course!). People are seeing jeans and a waistline on him. Not there, people. I don’t know exactly what IS there. But people are clearly - read the thread - constructing what they want to see. They have been brainwashed into seeng a fake; so they search out the things that make it fake. To them. Just as True Believers search out what makes it real. Again, to them.

Cynicism, negativism, and denial are simply more powerful forces in our society than optimism (or true skepticism). Instead of saying, I can’t figure out what that is, people say: of course two small-timers did something Hollywood has never topped. And as cloudcuckoo as the scenario is, it doesn’t matter. Because so-called skeptics don’t even have to postulate the scenario. They sneer and toss mud pies. And the world - wanting to be safe here - sneers with them. At least around their friends, they do. Since most folks couldn’t spell science, much less practice it, the learned arguments for the authenticity of the film go right over their heads. They either

(1) BELIEVE! or

(2) sneer NO WAY!

Without the foggiest notion what it is they’re looking at. They’ve been pre-informed what to think, so they think it. And they are, most of them, ill-informed on almost every relevant topic. So they keep asking the same old, to them, open-and-shut questions that the knowledgeable have long since dismissed. (Where’s the body why no photos why no roadkill why no hunters yadayada.)

This is why P/G will never amount to proof. We’ve been brainwashed. The true skeptic in me says: the proponents have it all over the scoftics on this one. But I can’t go the last mile, because I haven’t seen an article in a mainstream journal pronouncing this critter real; and I have never personally seen one. It is CONCEIVABLE - I’d be locked up if I ever proposed how it could actually happen, but it’s conceivable - that it was faked.

Still, debating P/G will remain ever fresh. This thread alone shows it will never be a tired topic. (For this alone Patterson may someday rank as one of history’s great geniuses. Check that. If he faked this, he WILL.)

And someday, somebody, with great learning, loads of funding, the ear of heavy professionals, and no blinders, might actually say:

I want to know.
rbhess responds: July 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
To Mystery Man, DWA, and Atomic:

Mystery Man first:

“I am a scientific person, and as such I want more facts here from both sides. If a suit like this is possible, I want to see how it was actually done by Patterson rather than a studio, and not merely how it “could’ve been” done.”

No no no no… this is a reversal of the scientific method. The extraordinary claim is in the hands of the pro-Bigfoot folks, and Patterson (notwithstanding that he’s dead). It needs to be proven that Bigfoot exists…. skeptics don’t need to prove he doesn’t exist. And even with film in hand, the pro-Bigfoot people need to prove that that isn’t a guy in a suit. Skeptics do not have to prove that it is. That’s how it works. It fits our standard scientific understanding of the world (for which we have evidence, fact, a body of long study of the world to support it) that a creature such as Bigfoot isn’t likely to exist, and that such a creature in a film is more likely to be a hoax than not. It’s up to the pro-Bigfoot people to PROVE that the thing in the film is NOT a guy in a suit. That’s that.

DWA says:

“There is no question in my mind about this: the scientific community came to the P/G film PREPARED TO SEE A MAN IN A SUIT. Not only that: most all of them had professional blinders on that would act to effectively prevent them from seeing a North American ape. Those, and only those, factors are why they could not take it seriously. “

To which I must say, YES, of course the scientific community came prepared to see a man in a suit. Read my comments to Mystery Man above. That’s the JOB of science… not to place faith in beliefs and suppositions, but to expect FACT and evidence. I too would like to believe that the Patterson film does constitute evidence… but you see, DWA, you make the mistake all too common in thinking automatically that it does so… it does not. Not in itself. Occam’s Razor is what science MUST go by, in order to be scientific. The Patterson film COULD be a guy in a suit. Until proved otherwise, SCIENCE must assume it IS a guy in a suit. Do you not see this? So therefore, it cannot, in and of itself, constitute evidence. Not until someone could prove (how you’d do that conclusively, I don’t know) within reason that it assuredly ISN’T a guy in a suit. Then we can accept it, scientifically, as evidence. Until then, scientifically, it has to remain just a Maybe, and a doubtful Maybe at that. That’s just the rules we have to play by. It’s not anyone’s particular “bias.”

Atomic:

“So what would happen if Gimlin and/or Patterson’s widow confessed to the hoax? Would people believe them or assume that pressure from skeptics made them change their story?”

Well I’d believe them, but as you know, a lot of these people who believe in Bigfoot, UFOs, et al treat it almost as a religion; the level of scientific rigor in investigations about these things is almost uniformly poor. They don’t really want to KNOW the truth, they want to believe. So I’m sure a lot of people would go right on believing, and react just as you say: they’d say the pressure got to Gimlin and Patterson’s widow.

BTW… I’m glad we can agree that Patterson probably couldn’t have actually filmed tests of his suit… I’m inclined to think that at best he could have looked through the viewfinder and hoped. As for his budget, hey… I still find myself on the fence about it. I don’t know how he did it, but if he did it, he did it, and he did a hell of a job. I look at the film and see problems (minor ones) that make me suspect it’s a hoax. The little nitpickings about how he did it… well, they just make me respect him more as a hoaxer. Of course… there’s still that small chance it wasn’t hoaxed… and all the Bigfoot stories and prints found do bother me. Just like the Loch Ness Monster… I feel there has to be SOMETHING to it. But what, is the question…

oh, and to DWA or Mystery Man…. can’t recall who said it, maybe it wasn’t either of you—but that Surgeon’s Photo WAS taken by MANY people to be sure evidence of Nessie’s existence for decades. You may say you always thought it was fake, but a lot of people thought otherwise. Same with the Patterson film. Many see/saw a real animal in both the picture and the film. Some never did. The fact is that hoaxes can be well done on the cheap, and fool people. We have to accept that, and keep digging for the truth.
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Atomic:

“They did [do field research, in response to my "why don't they....?"]. See also: Tom Slick.”

Clicked the link. It’s a single page, on Wiki. Composed, 98%, of paperwork and speculation.

Read about Slick’s expedition. That gig wouldn’t have found a red fox.

The kind of field research required to get confirmation of an alleged species has happened, in the case of the sasquatch, one time. We are talking about that one case on this thread. Why should we be surprised that it succeeded? It normally does, doesn’t it?
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Atomic: but this, from the above Wiki link you cite, deserves mention here.

————————————

Beginning in 2000 the American/Canadian association called the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization began organizing informal searches of wilderness areas in the U.S and Canada where sightings have been reported. During these searches several sightings and track finds have reportedly occurred. The most notable piece of evidence obtained so far is the Skookum Body Cast. The group expects their accumulating observations and evidence will lead to formal long-term studies in certain areas where sightings and tracks occur most frequently.

————————————-

Right. English translation: there is no way, in the proverbial Hay-deeze, that BFRO thinks that its research will find conclusive evidence. But they hope - actually, expect - that they will create enough smoke that properly funded and equipped professionals - with, even more importantly, in fact most importantly of all, the time to devote to the task - will search for the fire.

In essence, agreeing with me.
jerrywayne responds: July 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
To DWA,

I’m glad to see that the Patterson film is not the most telling piece of evidence for Bigfoot in your opinion. You are most impressed by Bigfoot sightings: “the incredible consistency of sighting reports in describing the same animal, across thousands of encounters spanning the continent.”
May I offer a few comments, observations, and questions for your consideration?

1.Sightings of all sorts of non-confirmed and non-confirm-able entities are made almost daily. I know far more people who have shared their ghost “sightings” with me than those who have seen Bigfoot. Are ghosts real? If you do not believe in ghosts, are you just “ignorant” of the facts? Thousands of people, spanning the continent, have reported visitations from aliens from another world(s). Do you believe this, or are you just “ignorant of the evidence?” Many people over the ages have reported encountering mermaids in the seas. Do you believe mermaids exist, or do you have “blinders” on?

2. Or, are you applying some sort of credibility or plausibility criteria to Bigfoot sightings? Does this criteria preclude the acceptance of other entities such as ghosts, aliens, or mermaids? By this, I mean, are you relying not solely on sightings per se, but also on the innate plausibility of Bigfoot itself? (Bigfoot is merely an unclassified “critter” and not some paranormal entity like ghosts or far-fetched entities like space aliens and mermaids). If you are basing your belief in Bigfoot on a (extra-sightings) plausibility criteria, then why are you so for-ever critical of others who also apply their own plausibility criteria (which is: the notion that Giant Apes, unknown to science and common knowledge, are forcing “thousands of encounters spanning the [American] continent” is an idea that lacks plausibility on its face, and is not compelling)?

3. For you the list of “sightings” is all important.
But, what do you really know about the sighters?
Any background checks? Personality profiles? Most famous sightings of cryptids are shocking examples of gullibility, with some true believer or advocate merely acting as a recorder of the sighting, without any serious attempts to explicate the sighting beyond the obvious attempt to foster belief. (Here, I simply note that I challenge your idea that all Bigfoot sightings are
describing the same animal. That is factually wrong unless any “hairy” two-legged animal fits your bill as Bigfoot.)

4.Why do you believe it is plausible that thousands of people all over the county are seeing Bigfoot but no definitive proof has yet been uncovered? Why do you not see the contradiction here, between an animal easily noticed (apparently), but never discovered?
And why, when all the great apes of the world, even the one’s hidden away in the dark forests of Africa and Southeast Asia, are losing ground literally, as their habitats are shrinking, is this Giant Super Duper Ape of America’s habitat growing in leaps and bounds (if we trace it’s habitat by the growing number of ever more frequent sightings over the years)?

P.S. In a previous post about sightings, you argued that there have always been sightings and other evidence of Bigfoot away from the Northwest and further back in time than the 1950’s. You sited Thompson’s 1811 track findings.
I looked it up. Thompson found tracks that had four toes and claws. He also made no mention of the animal being bipedal. This is your evidence for Bigfoot?
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Wow. Um, lots of thinking to set straight up there. Where to start.

OK. rbhess first.

“The extraordinary claim is in the hands of the pro-Bigfoot folks, and Patterson (notwithstanding that he’s dead). It needs to be proven that Bigfoot exists…. skeptics don’t need to prove he doesn’t exist. And even with film in hand, the pro-Bigfoot people need to prove that that isn’t a guy in a suit. Skeptics do not have to prove that it is. That’s how it works. It fits our standard scientific understanding of the world …”

Um, nope. Man. Thought I’d gone over this, but OK…[sigh]…there are two almost-ridiculous claims here: that the ape is real, and that it was faked. Skeptics can’t pretend that all they have to do is postulate that it could have been faked. It’s the scientist’s job to use Occam’s razor to sort competing claims, and so far, the hoax one simply does not scan. And nothing “needs” to be proven. If I ever see a sasquatch, I will have all the proof I need, and that will be all I ever care about. Proponents have done the heavy lifting, and have presented tons of evidence for their claims; skeptics, that would be zero. They don’t HAVE to prove anything. They don’t HAVE to be taken seriously, either. No one who makes an outlandish claim with no backup needs - or deserves - to be. And the total absence of any hair of evidence that this was hoaxed - after 40 years - makes the hoax claim, simply, outlandish.

“the pro-Bigfoot people need to prove that that isn’t a guy in a suit.” Nope. Remember, no one NEEDS to. But we can say that the proponents have come as close to proof as is possible without confirmation of the animal. That, we certainly can. That science didn’t follow up the lead isn’t the proponents’ fault. You can only lead a blind horse to water.

“YES, of course the scientific community came prepared to see a man in a suit. Read my comments to Mystery Man above. That’s the JOB of science… not to place faith in beliefs and suppositions, but to expect FACT and evidence.”

So what did they do? They placed faith in their belief that it was a man in a suit. BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK! DISQUALIFIED! This is precisely my point; they in no way objectively analyzed the film, because their belief blockers - anathema to true science - stepped in and said, oh no you don’t. How DARE you be logical. One scientist concluded from his analysis that the film could not be of a human, and then said: but I’m sorry. I simply can’t believe it exists. Sound like science? Not to me neither. You cannot come in with ANY preconception but: let’s really look at this, and see what it is. Should the animal be confirmed, the reaction of scientists to initial screenings of the Patterson film will be forever listed high among the greatest mistakes of blind illogic science ever made. There it was…and they watched it walk right through the space between their ears. One more time: no one should come to any situation where objective analysis is required “PREPARED” TO SEE ANYTHING BUT WHAT IS THERE.

“Until proved otherwise, SCIENCE must assume it IS a guy in a suit. Do you not see this?”

No, maybe because it is, um, how you say in astronomy, crazy wrong. Repeat: SCIENCE CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING. IT IS THE SCIENTIST’S JOB TO REVIEW WITH AN OPEN MIND, AND ANALYZE, AND CONCLUDE AFTER. NOT BEFORE! Do YOU not see that the fevered discussion about this film, FORTY BAZOOMBAH YEARS after it was shot, indicates all by its lonesome that science may have made one of its worst assumptions ever?

“I too would like to believe that the Patterson film does constitute evidence… but you see, DWA, you make the mistake all too common in thinking automatically that it does so…”

That’s not a mistake. THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES! This is EVIDENCE. Like any evidence, it is either good or bad evidence. SCIENTISTS NEVER ASSUME; AND TO ASSUME THAT SOMETHING IS NOT EVIDENCE IS - WAIT FOR IT, CLASS - AN ASSUMPTION!!!!!!!!! With, right class! NOTHING to back it up!

(Sorry about the caps. But we enamored of true skepticism get a little defensive when it’s misused.)
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Now for jerrywayne. Look away if you don’t like blood.

1. That whole comment. What a mess. Every phenomenon you list is all over the freakin’ MAP as to what people are experiencing. No commonalities whatever. Quick, describe a UFO. Quick, what does a ghost look like? etc. Except, sooo-PRIZE! WHICH one? I’ll spot ya three guesses.

2. “If you are basing your belief in Bigfoot …”

I DO NOT “BELIEVE IN” ANYTHING! THIS IS THE EVIDENCE CLUB, DID YOU NOT GET THE MEMO? (Sorry for the caps. I just hate repeating myself 1,0000 times.) Bigfoot is not something that exists, to me, until he is CONFIRMED. Belief ain’t getting us there, either way.

“If you are basing your belief in Bigfoot on a (extra-sightings) plausibility criteria, then why are you so for-ever critical of others who also apply their own plausibility criteria (which is: the notion that Giant Apes, unknown to science and common knowledge, are forcing “thousands of encounters spanning the [American] continent” is an idea that lacks plausibility on its face, and is not compelling)?”

I have real heartburn with faulty plausibility criteria. What’s “common knowledge”? If five million Americans, even more, have actually seen a sas, that number would not surprise me a jot. But if none of them can talk to anyone else - even someone who’s seen one, but wants to be perceived by his buddies and coworkers as sane - without getting laughed at, what do you have? Common knowledge that dare not speak its name. “Unknown to science” is not exactly, to me, a litmus test of reality. Science takes a minimum of decades to change its mind on anything. Except Pluto. Look how they messed that one up.

3. “For you the list of “sightings” is all important. But, what do you really know about the sighters?”

Good point; they’re all nuts, or at least I want their drugs. NEXT!

“Most famous sightings of cryptids are shocking examples of gullibility…”

How many times do I have to TELL you people about blurting out assumptions? Where’s that statistic? Gimme the book, I’ll use the ToC.

“Here, I simply note that I challenge your idea that all Bigfoot sightings are
describing the same animal. That is factually wrong unless any “hairy” two-legged animal fits your bill as Bigfoot.”

Good point, the others are probably extant Neanderthals. Or, um, “hairy” ostriches? You tell me.

4. “Why do you believe it is plausible that thousands of people all over the county are seeing Bigfoot but no definitive proof has yet been uncovered? Why do you not see the contradiction here, between an animal easily noticed (apparently), but never discovered?”

Oh, it’s been discovered. Seems by everyone except science. See, you need to stop seeing science as a religion, and start seeing it as a bunch of people who really like their jobs. I REALLY hate to repeat myself 1,000 times, but many animals are in the scientific inventory with less evidence than exists for the sasquatch. “Noticed” and “discovered” are two VASTLY different things. Skeptics have a real problem with that. People who understand human nature? We don’t.

“And why, when all the great apes of the world, even the one’s hidden away in the dark forests of Africa and Southeast Asia, are losing ground literally, as their habitats are shrinking, is this Giant Super Duper Ape of America’s habitat growing in leaps and bounds (if we trace it’s habitat by the growing number of ever more frequent sightings over the years)?”

Don’t know. And I’ve REALLY never figured out how another Giant Super Duper Ape has a population OF SIX BILLION AND CLIMBING and lives EVERYWHERE. When you figger that one, tell me.

P.S. “You sited Thompson’s 1811 track findings.
I looked it up. Thompson found tracks that had four toes and claws. He also made no mention of the animal being bipedal. This is your evidence for Bigfoot?”

Yupper! That one does it for me! Thompson Believes, And So Do I! Think I’ll get a t-shirt made.

Sorry. Sometimes flip’s the way to go, son. But you need to read some sighting reports. They’re the best evidence, you know. Did I, um, ever tell you why?
mystery_man responds: July 17th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Rbhess- Thank you for the tutoring on the scientific method, but as a science teacher, I think I have an understanding and I would have to say that I don’t think you read my post fully. I said I expect the proponents to find evidence as well and I do expect them to prove it. I KNOW that skeptics don’t have to prove it, and that the burden is on proponents to back their claims but if skeptics want any theory of theirs to stick, they might have to show a little more than just guessing about what “could’ve happened. The scientific method is actually to formulate a hypothesis and then verify it, and this is not being done with some of the skeptical theories. This is not all about whether it exists or not but how a hoax could’ve been pulled off, which will require evidence for any one idea. I would say just as proponents need to prove this is a real animal, the skeptics need to prove not that Bigfoot does not exist, but rather that some of their scenarios really happened and that this type of suit really existed.

If you read carefully, you would see that I’m NOT saying that skeptics have to prove it doesn’t exist, but rather that these specific theories on how Patterson could have done it are largely speculation and as such will need some substantiation in order to be accepted as what actually happened. While skeptics do not have to prove it exists, some of the suit hypotheses are based on conjecture of how Patterson “could’ve” done it, with little evidence on whether this is what happened or not. You think that wild speculation on the part of the skeptics is to be taken as fact, is that what you are saying? That is not scientific either and the suit theories should not be taken at face value without substantiation. Otherwise, although it may be a hoax, we won’t know how it was really done. Show me facts.
mystery_man responds: July 17th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
So show this suit was made by Patterson and how it was done, not that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, that’s my gist.
DWA responds: July 17th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
rbhess:

Some things bear repeating.

“That’s the JOB of science… not to place faith in beliefs and suppositions, but to expect FACT and evidence.”

Exactly. I’m not a scientist, but unfortunately, I think like one. Do not come to me with the flat unfounded assumption that history’s greatest hoax

1) has gone on 40 years, with no one taking credit;
2) was done almost for free, producing something Hollywood still can’t; and
3) represents practically the worst conceivable possible use of the extensive resources that had to be required (quite possibly the lowest rate of financial return on any project in history).

You need to have FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up that fever dream. Let’s see those invoices. No more faith in beliefs and suppositions. ‘Cause I NEVER do that.

The General Implausibility Theorem (”um, that’s IMPLAUSIBLE”) will not wash here. Five will get you ten (hundred) that if Occam were here, he’d say go with the ape, silly! Isn’t it OBVIOUS?

To everyone except the so-called skeptics, and those who have never thought about it, it is.

Remember: you never HAVE to prove anything. But your proposition never HAS to be taken seriously, either.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 18th, 2007 at 1:16 am
DWA:

If this was a fake, much more was involved than that. Most “talented”
people wouldn’t have a shot at pulling this off.

I was merely making the point that Patterson wasn’t devoid of talent. I’m still waiting for proof that they didn’t have any skills that could be applied to costume-making.

rbhess and jerrywayne seem to have adopted some of my other points, so I’ll thank them for giving me an opportunity to save space and let them handle it.

Two insignificant cost items, check! Compared to the real stuff in a
real movie budget they scarcely merit mention.

Union workers are often ditched for a low-budget production to save money. This is noted on the MANIAC COP DVD commentary. Look at the sheer number of wants ads for “Non-union extras/help/etc.” for low bidget movies on craiglist or read this. You can see the performers’ breath in indoor scenes in some old movies because they didn’t use heating in order to save money. Studios cut corners all the time to save money, and Patterson wouldn’t have to deal with any of the extraneous stuff I mentioned.

Now you have to either (1) write me a letter and pick up a penny from the floor with that lacrosse glove

With practice, I could. I could also do that for the coin or be sneaky and dab the fingers (or coin) with a gluestick.

All I’m saying is: that sure looks too real for any supposition I’ve heard about how it could have been faked. Give me a PLAUSIBLE fake scenario and I’m all ears.

I’d need some guidelines as to what would be a “plausible scenario” first.

As for the BFRO thing, you missed my point. Science didn’t just wait around after the P/G footage came out. Studies were done in the 70’s and found nothing. Modern “evidence” isn’t good because print “dermals” have been shown to be casting artifacts and “Skookum Cast” is most likely that of an elk. Sadly, we can’t know for sure since the owner isn’t letting anyone look at it.

Sightings without solid physical evidence don’t carry any weight, so that leaves the P/G footage. The problem with that is analysis of that footage is grossly incomplete. Lack of comparisons to various types of people in various types of costumes, no addressing the issues with the tracks, no third party film enhancing, etc. If the film is to be treated as evidence, then it must stand up to the scrutiny that all other evidence and experiments must go through. It is only then that it can count as evidence worthy of the large-scale operation you desire.
Lyndon responds: July 18th, 2007 at 5:01 am
The notion that bigfoot sightings can be equated wiuth alien sightings is a misnomer.

UFOs….they are big, they are small, they are square, they are round, they are oblong, they are triangular, they are fast, they are slow…….there is little uniformity.

Aliens….they are tall, they are short, they are geen, they are grey, they ahve big heads, they have small heads, they have long arms, they have no arms etc etc.

There is NOT the persuasive consistency with UFO/Alien reports going back decades and even centuries that we find with bigfoot reports.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
For Atomic:

“Patterson wouldn’t have to deal with any of the extraneous stuff I mentioned.”

To get what he got done, in total secrecy, with (once again) results like nothing Hollywood’s done (anamatronics aren’t real and don’t look it), he would have had to put up with a LOT of extraneous stuff. If he didn’t, skeptics have to show exactly why. And how. And who, when and where. They can’t just say, abracadabra! he DID IT! That’s like shapeshifting Bigfoot; i.e., without evidence, simply silly.

“I’d need some guidelines as to what would be a “plausible scenario” first.”

Mystery_man and I have laid that out, in detail, right on this thread. No mud pies. Details. Facts. Invoices. The hoax scenario doesn’t hold together. The ape does. Don’t wait for proof that Patterson had the talent to do this. There’s abundant evidence. He didn’t. This is like proponents waiting for Bigfoot to present himself to the National Academy of Sciences.

“Science didn’t just wait around after the P/G footage came out. Studies were done in the 70’s and found nothing. ”

That’s pretty much precisely 180 degrees wrong. Science has crushed those hands, sitting on them. As I said, the Wiki link has nothing but paperwork, all of it done by proponents, none by mainstream organizations with funding and time.

One more time: Patterson is IT. Ain’t no more. Long weekends ain’t gonna find any critter, much less a pretty smart one. Unless you want to count all those sightings. Now how many of those people do you think are ready to provide scientific documentation? Actually, all of them, if science would follow up on what they’re seeing. This is the most basic, fundamental misconception that keeps the skeptic in the dark about why there’s no Bigfoot yet.

“Modern “evidence” isn’t good because print “dermals” have been shown to be casting artifacts and “Skookum Cast” is most likely that of an elk.”

Both wrong.

It has been shown that researchers need to be cautious about what have been shown, in SOME instances, to be casting artifacts. Matt Crowley, the guy who “discovered” this, is very cautious about it, and makes this point, with emphasis. It isn’t proof, or evidence, against anything except the instances in which Matt himself made prints showing cast artifacts. Experts in the field of primate latent print identification have said dermal ridges in Bigfoot casts are dermal ridges of an unknown primate. Argue with them, not with me.

As to Skookum, it’s still under consideration because - just like Patterson-Gimlin - every qualified scientist who has looked at it has said either “giant unknown primate” or “I don’t know.” That’s another skeptic shibboleth that gets tossed around, to pretty much no effect. At least one skeptic - Dr. Daris Swindler, professor emeritus, physical anthropology, University of Washington and former skeptic (he even appeared on documentaries as one) - was converted when he saw the Skookum cast. What have skeptics countered with? Pictures of elk, kneeling in the mud. Wow, didn’t know they did that. Casts, please. Have you seen any? No. There’s a REASON you haven’t.

“Sightings without solid physical evidence don’t carry any weight.”

Not if they are not followed up, they don’t. Ask anyone who has ever participated in a murder trial about the role of sightings. The physical evidence that convicts murderers is found when sightings are followed up. You need to ask Jane Goodall and John Bindernagel and George Schaller. Um, not about murder. About the sighting data. They are all fine scientists in relevant fields - and the sightings are the backbone of their conviction, for two of the three, that the animal exists, and for the other, that “a hard-eyed look is essential.”
jerrywayne responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am
DWA,

Maybe it’s just me, but your response seems largely incoherent. Before I cut it loose, though, I would like a non-ranting response to the Thompson account. You cited Thompson as providing evidence that Bigfoot dates far back into history and is not relegated to the Northwest.
Yet, I find that Thompson found large tracks of 4 toes with claws and made no mention of a bipedal animal at all. Again I ask: is this the account you use to advance the case of Bigfoot? If so, why?
(And, again, I ask for a straightforward answer and not a rant. Please.)
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:21 am
DWA:

“Um, nope. Man. Thought I’d gone over this, but OK…[sigh]…there are two almost-ridiculous claims here: that the ape is real, and that it was faked. Skeptics can’t pretend that all they have to do is postulate that it could have been faked. It’s the scientist’s job to use Occam’s razor to sort competing claims, and so far, the hoax one simply does not scan.”

I appreciate that you’re trying to get your head around this problem, pal, but you’re missing it, and you don’t seem to understand Occam’s Razor. It isn’t about “competing claims” in a vacuum. There is a prevailing scientific model of the world that must be dealt with, that has a lot of hard evidence to back it up. Now, Occam’s Razor boils down to this: the simplest solution tends to be the best one. There is no hard evidence of any kind that Bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO’s (as extraterrestrial spacecraft) exist, for that matter. If there were hard evidence for any of these phenomena, the question would be solved or on its way to being solved, anyway. But “evidence” that can be faked (films, photographs, foot prints) does not constitute hard evidence. There is no hard evidence of any kind that an anthropoid ape has ever existed on the North American continent; nothing in the fossil record whatsoever. There is no evidence that any primate, other than man, walks upright, and no evidence that any ever did, except our hominid ancestors. There is no fossil record of any such hominid proto-humans in the Americas. All these negative facts support the prevailing scientific model of primate/hominid history as it stands today. Bigfoot, as a huge challenge to that model, is on the outside and is unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely). Therefore Bigfoot is the thing that needs to be proven; mainstream science needn’t DISprove him.

Same goes for the Patterson film. The simplest explanation is that it’s a guy in a suit. That fits the prevailing model and therefore has to get the nod from science. You may not like it, but tough, that’s the way it is. The fact is that NO ONE has as yet demonstrated conclusively that it couldn’t be a guy in a suit, and until then, science MUST deem it to likely be a guy in a suit. End of story. You say the hoax explanation “simply does not scan.” But where’s your EVIDENCE for this? No, this is your BELIEF, rather. You have no evidence to prove it’s not a guy in a suit. If you did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Skeptics aren’t “pretending” to suppose it’s a guy in a suit…. they’re saying that until it’s proven that it CAN’T be a guy in a suit, the scientific method demands that we go with the simpler, less complex explanation—which remains that it probably IS a guy in a suit. It’s not up to skeptics to prove that it’s a suit. Not in the least. It’s up to Bigfoot supporters to prove otherwise. That’s the end of it.

Believe me, I wish it could be true, and I’m not one of these who denies Bigfoot’s existence. I have my doubts about the film, but they’re just that, doubts.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:31 am
DWA, part 2:

“Exactly. I’m not a scientist, but unfortunately, I think like one.”

You may think you do, but in fact you don’t. I’ve tried to explain to you why this is so. Ignoring my points, however, should you choose to do so, won’t make you right. I could say to you “I am a scientist,” but would an appeal to my authority really matter to you?

I’m not trying to be difficult or ride you on this (oh and by the way, I use caps too, but really only because I’m in a hurry and hate writing html code… so I hope you indulge me on that). I understand your feelings on this, and I WANT to agree with you, really… but in good conscience I can’t. Not until I see hard evidence that it COULDN’T be a suit. Sorry, but I do NOT need “facts and evidence” to back up anything in this regard. It is not a “fever dream” that the Patterson film COULD have been hoaxed. It’s a very real and strong possibility, and I think in your heart of hearts you must know this. Is it an OBVIOUS possibility, is it clearly so? No, not at all. I admit freely that there’s a lot of questions about it, and I voiced them earlier in my exchanges with others. But doubt and questions aren’t enough to challenge the standard scientific model or the scientific method. There’s still a damn good chance and likelihood that that was a guy in a suit. As long as that is the case, then science has to assume it was. That’s all there is to it.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am
jerrywayne: if you think my response was incoherent, I’m not sure where to go with you.

But I saw flip in what you wrote, and responded with flip. It’s just more fun than reasoned responses repeated many many times over. I’ve told more than one person here to just go to every sas thread on this site and look for DWA. I haven’t seen a so-called skeptical argument that I haven’t dissected, ten ways to Sunday.

But I’m not doing people’s research for them. Particularly when it has been done, over and over, right here on this site, by Loren and Craig, among others. As to Thompson… read Thompson’s account of what he found. No known animal, and almost certainly bipedal. If you know anything about animals, it’s an easy conclusion to draw from what he says.

And (as I’ve said here, about 1,452 times, no kidding), NO SINGLE ACCOUNT WILL EVER CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING. You claimed that Bigfoot just celebrated his 50th birthday. Thompson was only one example I cited to show you, wrong. Maybe the name, but not the animal. He’s in most Native American cultures, and the encounters of Europeans with hairy bipeds predate American independence.

You could look it up. But I’m not going to look it up for you. I think that proponents, and true skeptics, are through with history. We’re looking for an animal, the vast preponderence of the evidence saying: it’s real.

Scientists use Occam’s Razor to sort competing claims. The sas is beating the hoax/lie/misidentify hypothesis on that count by so much that if there were a “murder rule” like there is in women’s softball, the sas would be confirmed by default.

If only scientists were paying attention. Only a few of them are. I never hear one doubt the existence of the sasquatch without him showing me, within seconds, that he’s not.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:43 am
rbhess, part whatever:

“You may think you do, but in fact you don’t. I’ve tried to explain to you why this is so. Ignoring my points, however, should you choose to do so, won’t make you right.”

Ah, but I do. And the most prominent way I show that is by responding, in detail, to all your points.

But it’s OK. I’ve seen more than one scientist totally forsake rationality, just this once, when the topic is the sasquatch. Scientists are people too, and they make mistakes. And here’s one:

“There’s still a damn good chance and likelihood that that was a guy in a suit. As long as that is the case, then science has to assume it was.”

NO IT DOESN’T. In fact, it CAN’T, and still call itself science. Science can’t ASSUME anything. We’d still be pre-wheel if it did. Science, in any form worth keepping, is questing and questioning. Nothing in P/G says, that’s human; it’s like me looking at a shot of a whitetail deer and saying, gimme two college kids with skinny legs and I’ll do the suit. But scientists, being humans with beliefs and biases like everyone else, put on their blinkers and go, bipedal ape? here? NO WAY! That would be calling myself an idiot! But I know I can go back to my books if I just say it’s a guy in a suit and go home.

Maybe he’s a scientist. But that ain’t science.

You may for all I know be a scientist.

But unfortunately, on this topic, you are NOT thinking like one. Again, understandable. You’re human.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I think there is something to clarify about my position on this one as some people seem to have misunderstood. We know what the proponents need to do, now I want to explain what I think needs to be done on the debunker side.

True, if a scientist proposes a hypothesis, such as a large hairy hominid roaming the Pacific Northwest, then they are responsible for backing up that claim with evidence. This happens in all fields of science and it should be no different in cryptozoology. But remember that in science, if there is a conflicting theory by another scientist, they are likewise responsible for explaining how their own theory works. That is how we come to the truth. Proponents have come forth with their idea, and are trying to verify it with concrete supporting evidence. The way I see it with the suit theory is that it is not merely stating that Bigfoot does not exist because of lack of evidence or some other deficiency in the Bigfoot theory, but rather it is actually proposing a different hypothesis, that Patterson and Gimlin were able to produce and pull off a hoax that hasn’t been successfully reproduced under these conditions for 40 years. Therefore, this goes beyond just demanding the proponents back up their claims, but rather puts forth a new claim and I do not think it unreasonable to expect those that have put forth this hypothesis to provide some hard evidence of how it was actually done. I am honestly interested in seeing such evidence considering I am not a full proponent of this footage and want to find evidence supporting either side.

I think my desire to see this sort of evidence is not even a matter of whether Bigfoot exists or not. Let’s suppose for a moment that this PG footage is known without a doubt to have been a hoax involving a suit. Now I feel there are going to be possible debates on how they were able to pull it off in the first place. Not even everyone within the suit camp is going to agree on any one scenario, and this is where evidence will be important. For example, you may get one person who says that Patterson had Hollywood connections, and another that claims he cobbled it together all by himself. These are hypotheses and as such, the proponents of each one have to back up the claims, just as sasquatch proponents need to do with their own claims. The only way we are going to find the truth in this case is by providing the supporting evidence behind each theory on how the suit was made. I have seen a lot of good ideas here on how the suit idea is feasible, especially from AtomicMrEmonster, but nothing that has coalesced into a concrete sequence of how things were done under the circumstances that Patterson and Gimlin faced. Whether sasquatch exists or not, sooner or later a solid theory on how the suit was done and how the hoax was brought to fruition will need to be put forward and backed up.

I see so far largely circumstantial evidence for any given hoax idea, and the “could haves” are all over the map. Yes, I fully agree that it could be a suit, but even if it is, I want to know the truth behind how it happened and the only way that will come about is through a scientific evaluation of what is on offer, not mere speculation. This is why, as a skeptic myself, I am disappointed with the attempt to dodge having to explain a skeptical hypothesis with the rather weak “it is not my responsibility to do that.”, while at the same time proposing other possible explanations that seem to need no substantiation. Instead we get speculation on things that may or may not have actually happened. That is not science. This is not merely an “exists versus doesn’t exist” question for me. You propose a hypothesis, you are responsible for showing how it is possible under the same conditions with as much evidence to that effect as possible. Within the hoax camp, this will have to be done even if PG is definitely a hoax.

I think examining the facts and presenting the solid evidence behind how Patterson could have made the suit is important for several reasons. First of all, not only could it bolster the skeptic argument that Bigfoot does not exist, it could provide valuable insights into how hoaxes are perpetrated as well as shed light on how these suits are fashioned on low budgets or with limited resources, as well as what methods are more likely to be used by any given hoaxer. Isn’t that worth digging for the evidence on any suit hypothesis? Second, Delving into the suit theory could also help the proponent case because if it can be somehow proven without a doubt that patterson could not have pulled this off, then we are left with only two other alternatives, which is that they were hoaxed themselves, or that what we see in the film is an actual sasquatch. Either way, I see enormous gains for both sides to be made by trying to provide evidence to support different suit theories. The ideas posted here are a start, now put it all together. This is something I would like to see happen more, rather than the “because it could have happened, it must have happened” argument.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Mystery Man:

“Thank you for the tutoring on the scientific method, but as a science teacher, I think I have an understanding…”

Well very sorry, and no disrespect intended, but I don’t think you do fully understand the scientific method. I would hope a science teacher would, but being a science teacher hardly qualifies as a mark of infallibility. See below.

“I KNOW that skeptics don’t have to prove it, and that the burden is on proponents to back their claims but if skeptics want any theory of theirs to stick, they might have to show a little more than just guessing about what “could’ve happened.”

No no… I’m sorry sir, but there’s where you get tripped up. You SAY you know that skeptics don’t have to prove anything, but then you go on to intimate that they must present evidence, which is proof. (”they might have to show a little more than just guessing…”) And your whole idea of skeptics having a “theory” is just wrong, and shows that you’re not getting it, here.

Skeptics have no “theory,” Mystery Man. Skeptics have the prevailing scientific model of the universe which says that an undiscovered, huge, upright hominid in the Americas is extremely unlikely. There is no evidence for such a thing in the fossil record and no hard evidence that it exists in today’s world. The Patterson film then presents itself. Now, scientifically I, as a skeptic, don’t have to present the slightest bit of evidence of any kind to say what that is, whether guy in a suit or what have you. A believer in Bigfoot, however, MUST present strong evidence that it could NOT be a guy in a suit. See my responses to DWA just prior to this for further elucidation of this point. You say you understand this, but you go on to contradict yourself by calling for skeptics to back up their “theories.” The idea that the Patterson film could have been hoaxed is not a “theory,” sir, it’s a simple statement of fact. Until someone proves it couldn’t be, then that’s the way things remain.

To think otherwise is a simple matter of gullibility, and I could therefore show you any number of things that MIGHT be hoaxes, and by your reasoning I’d have to demonstrate that they were such. No, sorry.. that’s not the way it works.

“The scientific method is actually to formulate a hypothesis and then verify it, and this is not being done with some of the skeptical theories.”

Again, you don’t seem to get it. There’s no such thing as a “skeptical theory.” There is the prevailing scientific model and there is the scientific method. An extraordinary claim, such as that the Patterson film is NOT a guy in a suit, must employ the scientific method to challenge the prevailing scientific model. A skeptic needn’t do anything to prove his or her position. They must simply remain open to your evidence, which you must then present. So far there is no EVIDENCE that the Patterson Bigfoot could NOT be a guy in a suit… only ideas, questions, and supposititions. They are not enough.

“This is not all about whether it exists or not but how a hoax could’ve been pulled off, which will require evidence for any one idea. I would say just as proponents need to prove this is a real animal, the skeptics need to prove not that Bigfoot does not exist, but rather that some of their scenarios really happened and that this type of suit really existed.”

This is so clearly a negating of the proper scientific method that I’m surprise it comes out of the mouth (or keyboard rather) of a self-confessed science teacher. A skeptic who is siding with the prevailing model of the universe need not prove anything. You should know that. Their only requirement is that they remain open-minded. It is ENTIRELY up to those supporting an extraordinary claim to present evidence, not otherwise.

You don’t seem to understand that a skeptic doesn’t have to “show” you anything. YOU have to show the skeptic. We may talk about ideas/”theories” of how Patterson might have done it… but there is no need whatsoever for us to prove these ideas and theories. A skeptic has the prevailing scientific model and that’s WHY he’s a skeptic… he must scientifically go with what is known. I don’t have to PROVE that Patterson could have made a suit… YOU have to prove he COULDN’T have. End of story.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
rbhess:

“I appreciate that you’re trying to get your head around this problem, pal, but you’re missing it, and you don’t seem to understand Occam’s Razor.”

Oh yeah, I get it completely. That’s how I know the simplest explanation is: P/G is a film of a sasquatch.

The most critical skeptical error with regard to this film (again, no knock on you, you’re human) is the presumption that “guy in suit” really is the simplest explanation. As mystery_man (not braggin’ on him or nuthin’, but he’s a biologist) and I have been saying, over and over, that is NOT a simple explanation. Anyone proposing it has to show why they think that, because the area was remote, the logistics incredibly formidable, the “confessions” offered so far incredibly smelly, the supposed perpetrators supremely unlikely, and the proportions not human. ALL OF THAT goes into the supposedly simple hypothesis: guy in suit.

No shred of evidence for any of it, and science is supposed to ASSUME that? Once again: not if it wants to call itself science when it looks in the mirror.

GIT does not work here. You can’t just say: a North American ape called homo sapiens is implausible. (Whoops! Typo.) A North American ape is quite plausible, and the typo is your proof. Why couldn’t there be another one?

Trust me. What’s getting in your way - got in mine once - is the tough time you’re having conceiving of the animal, despite all the evidence.

But it’s understandable. Beliefs impede logic, no matter who you are.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
DWA:

Yes, scientists are people too. Where they can be fallible on a topic such is this is in not being open-minded. That means not even looking for evidence and ignoring evidence when it’s presented. But the Patterson film, by its nature, is not evidence. Not until it’s proven that it COULDN’T have been a guy in a suit. Until then Occam’s Razor says, it’s a guy in a suit. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

You’re both right and wrong on the idea of science “assuming” things. In the very broad sense you have a point, in a way… science IS about questioning and examining and experimenting. But please, DWA… science “assumes” things everyday. Otherwise we’d have to go about re-proving all we “know” about the universe every time we examined a new question. We’d have to re-establish all our knowledge about EVERYTHING every time we started a new experiment. Science “assumes” that the prevailing model of the universe is right UNTIL evidence is found that indicates otherwise… THEN science goes back into questioning and re-examining. In fact, a great illustration of this occurs in the midst of your little rant:

“it’s like me looking at a shot of a whitetail deer and saying, gimme two college kids with skinny legs and I’ll do the suit.”

That’s precisely it. See, the prevailing scientific model tells us that whitetail deer DO exist, because we have specimens, they’ve been studied at length, they’ve been dissected, held alive, etc. etc. If you show me a photo of one, then scientifically it’s expected for me to assume that it IS a whitetail deer. I’m not expected to scratch my head and say, “well I guess I have to go back and re-prove biology so I can be certain that such a critter exists.”

“scientists, being humans with beliefs and biases like everyone else, put on their blinkers and go, bipedal ape? here? NO WAY! That would be calling myself an idiot! But I know I can go back to my books if I just say it’s a guy in a suit and go home.”

I understand your apparent passion on this point. In fact, I agree with you. No one calling himself a scientist should simply deny things in a knee-jerk fashion. Walking away from a problem isn’t science. But it IS valid for a scientist to say, “look here, yes, you’re showing me a film that’s pretty convincing. But it clearly is possible that that could still be a guy in a suit. Show me why it CAN’T be a guy in a suit, give me evidence, and we’re in business. Until then, it’s an unknown.”

See, I’m not saying the Patterson film IS a hoax. I’m saying it’s more LIKELY it’s a hoax than not. And therefore, I’ve got to be shown proof that it’s not.

And sorry DWA, but on this I AM thinking like a scientist. You, on the other hand, are reacting like a passionate believer, and unbridled passion isn’t scientific either.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am
And as far as the whole “I think like a scientist”, “no you don’t” “do too!” argument above, I think it needs to be realized that there is some variations between the methods and modes of thinking of different scientists, after all they are only human. Jeff Meldrum is a scientist and at the same time, you may have another scientist who completely disagrees with him on all counts. How are you going to say that one is being “more scientific” than the other? Obviously there is Scientists in no way walk around patting each other on the back and supporting each other on everything. There are scientists who think some pretty kooky things and others with minds as closed as vices. I don’t think the accusations in the exchanges above about what constitutes scientific thinking are really all that helpful to this discussion and indeed just seem to be turning this from a debate into an unfocused argument.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Rbhess- I do not know why you are choosing to get irritable with me over this, but you are misunderstanding what I say. I am not asking skeptics to show me anything and I have made no claims that the PG footage is real. I have clearly stated that I feel the PG footage could be a hoax and that I merely ask for evidence on how it was done if that was the case. Not whether it was a hoax, but HOW IT WAS DONE. How can I make it clearer for you? I am merely asking skeptics to show each OTHER something and saying that I want to know how a hoax was done. But rather than respond to me in a civil way or listen to me fully, you are disrespecting my profession and integrity as a teacher of science. If you think of science as rooted in a curiosity of how things work, I think that I am being very scientific and finding out things about the world and questioning what I see, as well as pushing into new frontiers is really why I got into this field to begin with.

Read my post again. I am not challenging the idea that PG is a hoax, in fact I think it very well could be. I just want to know how it was done, and how they pulled it off, and to ascertain exactly how it was done will require evidence. I am very interested in the extent by which cryptids may be scientifically unfeasible. There ARE skeptical theories, because there are different ideas on why any particular cryptid doesn’t fit in with the mold you describe or different ideas on how a hoax was made. All skeptics do not agree and this is because they have differing hypotheses. To say that skeptics have no theories or differing points of view is simply not true. If these are not theories, what would you call them? Ideas?

Instead of getting angry at me and lashing out for no reason that I can see, I would recommend you read my post carefully and see that I am not endorsing the film as real. If you are willing to accept speculation as the end all be all answer even when hearing other skeptical views, then I am afraid you are the one who is perhaps in need of a science lesson.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
rbhess:

“Yes, scientists are people too. Where they can be fallible on a topic such is this is in not being open-minded. That means not even looking for evidence and ignoring evidence when it’s presented. But the Patterson film, by its nature, is not evidence. Not until it’s proven that it COULDN’T have been a guy in a suit. Until then Occam’s Razor says, it’s a guy in a suit. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.”

I’ve shown that, well, the above is not only closed-minded, but wrong. So we’ve hit agree-to-disagree territory there.

“[We] have the prevailing scientific model of the universe which says that an undiscovered, huge, upright hominid in the Americas is extremely unlikely.”

Um, wow. You got m_m ticked, which is hard to do. And I’d have to agree with him on who needs tutoring here, and I ain’t even a scientist. (I’m even more dangerous; because I don’t have cloudy world-models telling me what to think.)

That “prevailing scientific model of the universe” don’t say anything except this:

1. The coelacanth is very unlikely to exist.

2. So is the mountain gorilla.

3. The giant panda is somebody’s idea of a joke.

4. The world is flat and the sky a bowl covering it.

5. The phonograph is useless; and mold is good for nothing.

There. See, models get dumped when open minds quest for new information because they know the tired old models are, well, wrong. That is how science works. You need models; because they provide structure for inquiry. But you need to hit the “dump” button when inquiry shows you that’s the button to hit. Open minds, questing. Patterson is not human, because everything says it isn’t, unless someone comes up with a coherent hypothesis showing that it is. Sorry, but that’s the way it is, and I think once again we have agree-to-disagree.

“See, I’m not saying the Patterson film IS a hoax. I’m saying it’s more LIKELY it’s a hoax than not. And therefore, I’ve got to be shown proof that it’s not.”

And I’m saying that it’s not more likely; and most scientists, if you didn’t tell them you were talking about the sasquatch, and said, proposition 1, lots of evidence, proposition 2, none, they’d go with 1. Agree-to-disagree, once again. It’s a big mistake to treat science as a religion that must be appeased. Pure science doesn’t have a model, really; that’s a convenience for scientists. Science is the breaking of molds with new info. But then scientists, being human, get in the way. When they make the model the new religion, and set it in stone against everything telling them otherwise, is when the trouble starts.

“In fact, a great illustration of this occurs in the midst of your little rant:”

Read it. Not a rant. Hmmmm. It is, you know, or you may not, REALLY hard to get m_m angry. But rants, they will do it.
“That’s precisely it. See, the prevailing scientific model tells us that whitetail deer DO exist, because we have specimens, they’ve been studied at length, they’ve been dissected, held alive, etc. etc.”

Right. And with no specimens, it doesn’t exist? Um, OK there. Existence, not science, determines what exists. You know what happened when those specimens got found? Old models got tossed is what happened. Once upon a time, boyz and girlz, no one knew the whitetail existed. And everyone KNEW that the continent on which it was found didn’t either.

“If you show me a photo of one, then scientifically it’s expected for me to assume that it IS a whitetail deer. I’m not expected to scratch my head and say, “well I guess I have to go back and re-prove biology so I can be certain that such a critter exists.”

So, the model is: when you find a coelacanth, toss it back, because the model says that’s a fossil? Help me out here.

“And sorry DWA, but on this I AM thinking like a scientist. You, on the other hand, are reacting like a passionate believer, and unbridled passion isn’t scientific either.”

Well, no, I’m talking like a passionate and articulate spokesman (and oh I am both) for true skepticism. Saying something could conceivably be a man in a suit, and not going beyond that, particularly when much argues that it isn’t, is walking away from a problem. Which never advanced science.

Let’s sum my post up.

We just need to agree to disagree.

(How many times do I have to type that “the sasquatch exists” is NOT among my current beliefs? I’m sure this won’t be the last…[sigh]…)
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
mystery_man:

1. But I DO THINK LIKE A SCIENTIST! I DO, I DO! [holds breath, knowing that the prevailing scientific model says that he will turn blue]

2. rbhess didn’t really tick you off. But he got you to tell him off. Same thing.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
DWA:

I appreciate being given the pass on being human, but you’re the one making the errors in judgment here, my friend.

Firstly, I lend no great credence to Mystery_Man’s credentials. You say he’s a biologist, he says he’s a science teacher. My guess, then, is that he teaches high school biology. Whoop-dee-doo. I could tell you I’m a professor of Biology at a major university—would that make any difference to you? Probably not, so let’s leave off that.

In calling for what is essentially proof from skeptics, both Mystery_Man and you are making a fundamental scientific error. The prevailing biological model of our world (supported by a body of empirical evidence miles thick) says that an unknown upright-walking hominid or great ape in the Americas is very unlikely. Notice I say “unlikely,” not impossible.

What you’re trying to tell me is that the “simpler” explanation is that the Patterson film is that of a real Bigfoot, that it’s more complex and less likely that it’s a man in a suit. This is in fact a dodge, and we might as well be honest about it, DWA. You have no real evidence that it IS a real Bigfoot, but believing strongly that it is so (I don’t blame you for this) you instead turn the tables on the skeptics and try to place the onus on us to prove it’s a suit. Uh uh, it doesn’t work that way. If you or anyone else had conclusively demonstrated that it was more likely that the “Patty” was a real Bigfoot, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. But you have not shown me or anyone else one shred of proof that it isn’t a guy in a suit, not even any real indication that it couldn’t be. And for all your protestations about it, it isn’t hard at all for me to show you how easily it could have been faked—even though it’s not the job of the skeptic to show you anything. I don’t need to go into every little detail of how Patterson might have done it. Again, that isn’t the job of the skeptic. You’re the one challenging the prevailing model here, not me. But just for one, sure, here you go:

Roger Patterson, for whatever reason of his own, decided to make a suit and fake a Bigfoot film. In secret he constructed or had constructed a nicely convincing ape suit for which he made or had made a unique head piece. The suit was built with extensive padding to present the image of a creature that was far heavier and larger than an ordinary man, and was built with arm extensions to further lend the air of believability to the overall picture. He then enlisted his friend Bob Gimlin in the project, rented a camera, and found a willing helper to don the suit. They went out, set up the shot which Patterson brilliantly choreographed (let us remember he was a former rodeo clown, and as such careful choreography would have been something he was very familiar with and may have had a great talent for) directed his “actor” suitably, ran a rehearsal or two, and then went for broke with the shot. He and his “Bigfoot” acted the scene superbly. He then faked a few footprints around the site and that was that. The suit he either hid until it was rotted away or destroyed. Fearing some kind of retribution against them (for fraud) and/or not wanting to kill their cash cow, Patterson and Gimlin remained silent. Patterson made no deathbed confession, Gimlin still may. Maybe Bob Hieronymous was the guy in the suit, but just as likely not. Perhaps there’s some agreement of some kind between Gimlin and the “actor” here, that is keeping the silence. That we may never know.

All the other elements of this—the way “Patty” walks, the movement of muscle, etc. etc. etc., are all subjective. I’ve been impressed by the film myself, but I’ve also seen things in it that make me suspicious. I see what looks like the arm extension clearly visible in one frame. In another I see a very flat foot that looks extremely unnatural, like it’s made of some stiff material. From a distance these things aren’t noticeable and undoubtedly Patterson took a chance on them not being picked up, or if they were picked up, it’d all still be subjective. Well he was right. We still can’t decide this thing and never will, probably. But for someone, such as yourself, to lay claim to its clear authenticity is just silly. We still don’t know what speed the film was shot in, we know that there was a discrepancy between the size of the creature in the film and the footprints that were found, and we know a lot of suspicious things about Patterson’s background. Worst of all is the fact that he actually set out to shoot a Bigfoot documentary, with reason to believe that he had discussed shooting a hypothetical Bigfoot sighting, and lo and behold he ends up shooting just that. Stretches credulity quite a bit.

Yet you would say that Occam’s Razor is on Patterson’s side in this. That’s disingenuous in the extreme, DWA.

“Trust me. What’s getting in your way - got in mine once - is the tough time you’re having conceiving of the animal, despite all the evidence. But it’s understandable. Beliefs impede logic, no matter who you are.”

Make no blithe assumptions, DWA, of what is “getting in my way.” I have no trouble conceiving of this animal. And I have no particular “belief” one way or the other. The fact is that I’d like to believe in Bigfoot and I always keep an open mind. I stand 60-40 or maybe 70-30 on the Patterson film. Forced to make a judgement I have to say that science still dictates that it challenges the prevailing view, and so therefore it must present strong evidence for itself. It does not do so. At best it presents shaky, nebulous evidence. It COULD be a real animal. But there’s nothing in it that says it must be, and nothing about it that says it couldn’t have been faked.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Like I said:

Agree to disagree.

But you can re-read my posts at leisure. They aren’t going away.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Mystery_man:

You misunderstand ME, sir… I am not angry in the slightest, with you or anyone else. I’m impatient with illogical, flawed reasoning, yes… but if I unfairly accused you of such a thing, then accept my apology.

I have read your posts. But what I was attacking were the particular statements you made–which I alluded to and quoted–that skeptics were under some obligation to provide proof of their “theories.” In this I feel you were wrong. But perhaps I misunderstood you. In re-reading your post though, I don’t believe I did.

At any rate, if it’s not about “obligation,” then sure, skeptics can provide some ideas as to how it was done. If you read MY earlier posts, particular in my exchanges with “Atomic”, then you’d see that I have my own thoughts and questions about this. But you seem to go further than me—you seem to more or less demand that skeptics back up the idea that the Patterson film could have been faked. And sorry, I repeat myself—but it is never the job of the skeptic to do such a thing. The simpler explanation here is that Patterson faked the film. End of story. No skeptic has to “prove” this, it’s in the nature of the reality all around us. If you are a science teacher/biologist, then you should know that the idea of a real “Bigfoot” or sasquatch just doesn’t jibe with what we know about the natural world as such. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it merely means it doesn’t jibe. Perhaps the prevailing model is wrong. That’s entirely possible. But to challenge it requires real, solid evidence… and sorry, but the Patterson film, as compelling as it may be subjectively, is not it. You seem to understand that, and yet call for skeptics to lay out how Patterson could have done it, which seemed polemical to me. In other words, you spoke as a skeptic partly, but seemed to be taking a stance that contradicted this.

I also would like to know how he did it, if he did… but the mere fact that people aren’t lining up to show how he did it doesn’t “prove” to me that it was impossible. I freely admit, he must have had a hell of a time of it if he did do it, and he did an excellent job. He deserves a lot of posthumous kudos.

At any rate, if I mischaracterized your post, I apologize. I am certainly no nay-sayer as far as Bigfoot goes…. I keep an open mind and neither believe nor disbelieve.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“And as far as the whole “I think like a scientist”, “no you don’t” “do too!” argument above…”

well where’s the fun in all this if you’re gonna get all “reasonable”?

Of course you make an excellent point and actually it’s the one I was trying to make, but clumsily neglected to do so. Thank you.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
rbhess- I am surprised that a possible fellow biology teacher would say a “woop dee doo” about someone like me even if I am just a high school biology teacher. I am going to guess from that sort of dismissive remark that you are maybe not an educator? If you are, I am curious as to how you could brush off any profession that involves teaching young people about the world. Anyway, interesting judgment of me based on some misunderstood posts.

It is interesting because you keep bringing up the scientific model of the world and how evidence is needed to prove Bigfoot exists and the thing is I do not disagree with you. Many of your comments illustrate exactly why I do not embrace Bigfoot as 100% real and I have actually made some similar points in past threads. I am not wholesale disagreeing with you and you seem to think I am. I tend to actually be more along the lines of it not existing, but there are so many possible explanations for lack of fossil evidence or lack of quality of video, that I feel myself compelled to dig deeper. True, there is no way to prove this video is of a real hominid, but there are things I can see in it that make me scratch my head, so I come on here and take the time to engage others like you on the matter. It is too bad that concerning this video, we will probably never know for sure and even some naysayers are going to wonder at least a little. You seem to be pretty convinced that this is a hoax that sits in total opposite to the laws of the natural world, so I’m sorry but I’m a little surprised you would post so much on the matter.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I’ve also done research on Japanese ecosystems, wildlife, and the effects of foreign species on indigenous habitats, not to mention assisted on field expeditions to study known animals such as the Japanese tanuki and giant salamanders if it means anything to you. But that has nothing to do with sasquatch, and that could explain my perceived lack of making sense when engaging in a somewhat open minded presentation of ideas on a creature not proven to exist rather than sitting on my laurels and embracing the skeptical view of some of my peers. As to your assumption, I do teach high school biology as well and translate papers (often scientific documents) from Japanese to English. whooop dee doo. I always thought that teaching at a high school level would be better for instilling an interest in science at an early age, so I have no regrets. Woop dee doo, indeed.

I wonder if it would be better for all of the people like me to just give in and be slaves to what we think we know about this world? Should we stop questioning videos like this or pursuing circumstantial evidence for sasquatch? I’m sorry, but I don’t think we should and I hope scientists like Jeff Meldrum and others like him do not buy that and stop what they are doing. By the way, there have been scientists who steadfastly endorsed the PG footage, have there not? Would you be willing to say that they are unknowledgeable or unscientific? I hope that man’s drive to go out into new frontiers never fades and that people entertain the thought of sasquatch long into the future. Maybe, just maybe, that “shred of evidence” will materialize. Won’t know if we don’t look.

Let’s get back to the sharing of ideas here people, not saying what must be true or not true or arguing. I’m not a “believer”. I just want to know the truth, and I am not satisfied that we know for sure what that is yet.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Just reviewing what I consider a, to say the least, totally non-scientific attitude (apropos of no one or nothing in particular).

1. A film is shot by two men following hot reports of an uncatalogued animal in a very remote area. No one knows their exact whereabouts on any day of their trip; it’s remote country. The search that led to that film is the only one of its type ever undertaken.

2. Everyone who analyzes the film - even skeptics - has one of two opinions of it (and there is no third, and you could look it up): it’s an uncatalogued animal, or its identity cannot be ascertained.

3. Ergo, science is justified in ASSUMING IT IS A HUMAN until proof is obtained that it is, indeed, the uncatalogued animal it looks like, walks like and - um, quacks like.

Now, a position that the so-called skeptic side needs to justify: how a scientist worthy of the name could ever buy the above syllogism.

(Maybe we should stop science and re-assess the white-tailed deer.)
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“I wonder if it would be better for all of the people like me to just give in and be slaves to what we think we know about this world? Should we stop questioning videos like this or pursuing circumstantial evidence for sasquatch?”

Exactly, and I too hope the answer is no.

Look, you can think whatever you want about P/G. You can say, sorry, no my yob. You can say, hey, cool, but I’m busy right now. You can say, hey, my thing is black holes, but I have my fingers crossed that someone finds it. You can even say hey, man in a suit.

What is an attitude profoundly unworthy of science at its best is to pollute the search by telling everyone in the scientific field that he’s an apostate for considering the animal plausible.

There is no model, of anything, anywhere, by which the sasquatch is implausible. (Us, maybe. But not the sasquatch.) There’s P/G. Anyone who even has the occasional moment of thinking, man, what if, has acknowledged that there, right there, is something to search on. And there is much, much more than P/G to search on, so much that the total absence of P/G would not change one thing I think about the possibility of the sasquatch.

You can’t assume before you know. And you can’t know before you look. Think otherwise and you may be a scientist but you are not practicing science.
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Mystery_man:

I detect some sensitivity. Come now. In fact my flippant “whoop dee doo” was directed at DWA, not at you. DWA was, I thought, loosely using you as an appeal to authority. (Perhaps I got that wrong too, I’ve been rushed today). I wasn’t dismissing you personally or professionally, nor dismissing high school science teachers. I was simply saying, “let’s not play the appeal to authority game here, because I can respond umpteen ways in the same manner. I can appeal to myself, other scientists, etc.” That gets us nowhere, really.

Let me reiterate here, also: your overall views on the subject were not what I was addressing earlier. I was solely addressing your statements which seemed to be asking skeptics to offer up some “proof” of how Patterson might have done it. I think you got “lumped in” with my responses to DWA, who was swinging more wildly, and my wild swing in return caught you on the chin. Again, my apology.

You seem to have me wrong here. In my defense of the scientific method, I may come off as more highly skeptical than I am. In fact, as I said in regards to the Patterson film itself, my feeling about Bigfoot runs anywhere from 70-30 to 60-40. I tend to believe such a creature probably doesn’t exist, but I’ve been troubled by not only the Patterson film, but certain eyewitness reports (and some of the footprints) that make me wonder.

“I wonder if it would be better for all of the people like me to just give in and be slaves to what we think we know about this world? Should we stop questioning videos like this or pursuing circumstantial evidence for sasquatch?”

See, it’s statements like this that bother me. The implied idea that the current model is somehow restrictive and suffocating, and that we shouldn’t be “slaves” to it. Sure some scientists scoff at examining such things as Bigfoot and other cryptos… but most of the ones I know don’t think that way. Most of them keep an open mind. The prevailing model isn’t restrictive in that way; the objective of true science is to keep drawing in evidence, to keep examining. You hint at a conspiracy of oppression where, frankly, I think little or none exists.

Yes, scientists who support a study of Bigfoot are still very much in the minority, but that’s because the HARD evidence is so paltry and thin, not out of some dramatic, rigid narrow-mindedness. Though of course, yes, the latter exists and I’m not saying it isn’t a problem from time to time. Most scientists, though, wish to study things they can actually study… that is to say, obtain specimens of, etc. A biologist or marine biologist or primatologist, etc. etc. takes a big chance (one not always to be afforded) in wanting to study things like Bigfoot or Nessie or such things. Not just because of ridicule from the community (yes that happens, because as DWA said, scientists are human too) but because there’s as yet nothing to actually study. They so far can only get at the frame around the picture, not the picture itself. If a specimen of a Bigfoot turns up, or even just conclusive physical evidence of such a thing, naturally biologists and primatologists, et al will show up in droves to study the thing.

The point of fact is, I respect people who make a study of these things before they’re even proven to exist, but I also understand the dominant view that says, “let’s wait and see.”
rbhess responds: July 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
DWA:

Really, you make it hard to walk away from this.

You actually lost me on some of your three part point above… but:

“Everyone who analyzes the film - even skeptics - has one of two opinions of it (and there is no third, and you could look it up): it’s an uncatalogued animal, or its identity cannot be ascertained.”

Uh, yeah, DWA, that’s exactly my point. There’s no “third” option because it isn’t the job of science to make definitive judgements on what such a thing IS. We can only take the evidence, such as it is, apply what we know about the model of the world as we have it, and go from there. Based on that, the only scientific conclusion one can come to (unless one concludes it’s real) is that it MIGHT be a guy in a suit. If it’s not “real,” after all, what else COULD it be?

I never said science then DECLARES the Patterson Bigfoot to be a guy in a suit… merely that if you apply Occam’s Razor to the problem, then the simpler solution is… it’s PROBABLY a guy in a suit.

“Ergo, science is justified in ASSUMING IT IS A HUMAN until proof is obtained that it is, indeed, the uncatalogued animal it looks like, walks like and - um, quacks like.”

It also walks like and looks like a guy in a suit, DWA.

But anyway, yes, more or less, this in fact it. What is your problem with this? Why does it seem to scandalize you so? YOU are apparently convinced by the Patterson film. Based on what? Where’s your argument for why you’re so CERTAIN it’s a real animal? Why does it bother you so that someone disagrees with what they feel to be a premature conclusion? You’ve decided that the Patterson bigfoot IS a real Bigfoot. Science isn’t with you on this (not yet anyway). So science must be totally out of whack, narrow-minded and utterly wrong? Yup, it MIGHT be. But why not back off a bit and say, “well I personally think it’s real, but I understand why science needs more evidence than this.” It’s like you have a personal stake in the Patterson film being real. Sheesh.

“Now, a position that the so-called skeptic side needs to justify: how a scientist worthy of the name could ever buy the above syllogism.”

Well, DWA, there are very few scientists out there–very few–who have your total faith that the Patterson film is real. A few scientists would scoff at it outright. Most would simply say, “it doesn’t constitute good enough evidence.”

I guess they’re all just bad scientists, huh, and only you know the truth? I suppose science is in deep trouble then, with all these wrong-headed people running it. My god man, you’d better save us all before it’s too late.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
rbhess:

When you talked about swinging wildly, you got the wrong man. ‘Cause you missed a few floaters there.

At least I only have to cut and paste this ’cause it’s right up there:

(How many times do I have to type that “the sasquatch exists” is NOT among my current beliefs? I’m sure this won’t be the last…[sigh]…)

I also do not believe P/G IS an uncatalogued animal. (God. I DID have to type it again.) What it is, is something that looks so un-human that anyone with a shred of curiosity should want to know how that suit got made because it’s the best in history, not to mention an utter inconceivability that it vanished without trace. (And worn by an actor worthy of a Lifetime Achievement Award for this role alone.) I also believe that the construction of that suit, and its transport to where it got used, and their keeping everything so hushhush that no one can even offer a half decent story, is so beyond all known principals’ known capacities that to accept that at face value is tantamount to holding out for the possibility that the sloth bear is actually a fish. But curiosity on the sas doesn’t appear a scientific specialty.

“It also walks like and looks like a guy in a suit, DWA.”

Well, no, because that would be your third opinion, which nobody has offered: that’s a guy in a suit. I hope you’re not telling me that scientists are reserving judgment about all the obvious guys in suits on Youtube. Because if they are, well, wow.

Oh. The scientists who scoff at it? Well, their scientific minds are on holiday. But nope, I can’t help them. And who ever talked about “late?” Been 40 years, man.

“What is your problem with this? Why does it seem to scandalize you so? YOU are apparently convinced by the Patterson film. Based on what? Where’s your argument for why you’re so CERTAIN it’s a real animal?…It’s like you have a personal stake in the Patterson film being real. Sheesh.”

Wow. Swinging wildly is one thing; but I never saw three strikes on ONE swing before!

(How many times do I have to type that “the sasquatch exists” is NOT among my current beliefs? I’m sure this won’t be the last…[sigh]…)

I also do not believe P/G IS an uncatalogued animal. (God. I DID have to type it again.)

What I can’t understand about so-called skeptics is their rabid insistence that no research into the sasquatch is allowed until one wanders into a hillbilly’s root cellar and locks himself in! Now, THAT seems like a personal stake to me.

Here is the position of true, pure skepticism:

Only a concerted field research effort involving all the time and money appropriate for the task (read: what all other such studies cost, and the time all other such studies take) will settle this question.

Shoot, I’m not even a scientist and I can tell you where the studies should focus. (And yes, I have done so, right here on this site. Let your fingers do the walking.)

You’re, what, against that?

THAT is a personal stake, my friend. Or in the alternative, it’s treating science like an angry god whose robes should not be soiled by our impertinent questions. Which is, um, a VERY personal stake. It’s OK, they let your eldest child live, I’ve tested it.

You make it so hard to walk away from this.
jerrywayne responds: July 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
To Lyndon,

Your are correct that alien sightings are more inconsistent than Bigfoot sightings. However, please don’t assume Bigfoot sightings are entirely consistent. For instance, there are such large differences between “Patterson’s Bigfoot” and the “skunk ape” that some advocates believe there are different species or types of Bigfoot.

My point about sightings is this: sightings are made of all types of non-confirmed entities. Either we accept all these sightings as real or we apply criteria and make distinctions between what is credible and what is not. In other words, we go outside the sightings themselves to appeal to general criteria. You have applied just such a criteria when you accept Bigfoot sightings as more credible than sightings of aliens. My main point is this: if it is appropriate for the advocate to go beyond sightings only and offer a criteria (which gives credence to Bigfoot but not aliens, ghosts, or mermaids, for instance), then the skeptic may also apply a criteria (in this case, the improbability that Giant Apes, unlike any other species known to exist, are roaming all over America) that overrides sightings (just as the inconsistencies of alien sightings override their credibility in your view.)

To Rbhess

I very much appreciate your posts. Very level headed and well done. Keep em honest! Thanks again.

TO DWA

Thompson in his journal described the tracks as “very much resembles a large Bear’s Track.”

40 years later he described the tracks as from a “Monster Bear”. Given the fact that he never said the beast was bipedal, and it was four toed with claws, how could this be even remotely perceived as a Bigfoot report?
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
DWA:

“Science has crushed those hands, sitting on them. As I said, the Wiki link has nothing but paperwork, all of it done by proponents, none by mainstream organizations with funding and time.”

The WWF is made up of Bigfoot proponents? Do you want me to link to articles by serious nature magazines that dealt with the subject immediately after the film’s release? It’s looking more and more like you just pick stuff that suits your view, on the rare occasion that you actually read my links.

Matt Crowley, the guy who “discovered” this, is very cautious about it, and makes this point, with emphasis.

No. Look at his website and contact him or go here. I’ve linked to both of those places in the past; if you are to complain about people not doing their reading, you have to follow your own rules.

Continuing on the subject of dermals, a (human) fingerprint expert who also looked at some primate prints examined the prints, saw some stuff that looked familiar and stuff he couldn’t identify. He deemed it to be an unknown primate. The correct thing to say would be “I can’t identify this.” Matt Crowley also made some interesting points about prints taken from mud.

As to Skookum, it’s still under consideration because - just like Patterson-Gimlin - every qualified scientist who has looked at it has said either “giant unknown primate” or “I don’t know.”

Or “elk.” There are elk tracks around it and yet no Bigfoot tracks around it. If the animal didn’t want to leave footprints to hide its prescence, it couldn’t have decided to leave a body print. I know they tested against part of an elk, but I also know that they only used one type of elk at a certain weight. Other types must be tested before it can be ruled out. This is exactly the type of thing that led to the Dinsdale footage being said to be not a boat since he compared it to a motorboat and not to a power dinghy.

If you argue that mainstream science came prepared to see the P/G footage as a man in a suit, doesn’t that mean that Dr. Meldrum and co. came prepared to see a cast as that of Bigfoot? And when people wanted to test it, the owners of the cast withdrew it! That’s the same sort of behavior that made Dr. Meldrum realize that the “Snow Walker” footage wasn’t as legit as he thought it was. Maybe science would’ve listened if they had presented it as “Hey, we found this, what is it?” instead of “Please look at this possible proof of Bigfoot.” This is the exact same problem with the P/G footage.

Pictures of elk, kneeling in the mud.

Was that the one with or without the lines showing where each part of the elk would go?

You need to ask Jane Goodall

The one who says she wants it to be real and is relying solely on stories of numerous sightings and hair samples as evidence? Dynel can be mistaken for organic primate hair by professionals. Krantz admitted to this.

Not if they are not followed up, they don’t

What about the ones that were? Lots of those tracks and other “evidence” were collected as a result of sightings being followed-up on.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
DWA:

To get what he got done, in total secrecy, with (once again) results like nothing Hollywood’s done (anamatronics aren’t real and don’t look it), he would have had to put up with a LOT of extraneous stuff.

Please provide evidence of these claims. As for Hollywood:
“In the pre-Kong/ pre-Star Wars ’70s, there were no “special effects” companies and most films relied on in-house effects experts. But, when a gorilla was called for, it was standard to go out and find someone who could supply their own gorilla costume.”

They didn’t bother to customize or build their own stuff, they just bought, rented, or recycled costumes. Bob Burns made a career out of renting out his suit. You can ask him yourself at his website. You can also see here for more Universal “gorilla suit” hilarity. I’ve already laid out why movie producers don’t give a crap about something being completely realistic, lighting, etc. You merely assume it isn’t possible and I have facts to back me up.

Mystery_man and I have laid that out, in detail, right on this thread.

mm gave me “How come they haven’t come together by someone else?” and you kept rambling about it looking like an ape and ratios.

The hair’s too short to conceal a suit? How do you know? How short are we talking? How did you determine that measurement? What’s the budget? How can you determine how much Patterson can raise? How can I tell what money he could get or how much a storeowner would charge? I’ve already got to second-guess one guy and I really don’t want to have to second guess you two, either.

Details. Facts. Invoices

How can I give facts if I’m second-guessing? There’s no way of telling if they were destroyed or not; I doubt Patterson’s widow is going to provide such information. Your demands are akin to Kent Hovid’s “challenge to evolutionists”. Oh wait…

1) has gone on 40 years, with no one taking credit;

Besides Bob H. and Philip Morris. The argument is bad anyway. The guy behind the Surgeon photo died, it was his step-brother who spilled the beans after being tracked down. One of the girls behind the infamous “fairy pictures” still swears one is real while the other says they’re all fakes.

2) was done almost for free, producing something Hollywood still can’t;

All you know is that Patterson didn’t have a steady job and often borrowed money. You don’t know how he spent the borrowed money or if he did anything to get more money. He wasn’t on the street in a cardboard box, so he had to have been getting money.

3) represents practically the worst conceivable possible use of the extensive resources that had to be required (quite possibly the lowest rate of financial return on any project in history).

No, that footage got him more borrowed money for investigations, proof, talk show appearances, the lecture circuit, appearing in MYSTERIOUS MONSTERS, reselling the footage as if he owned 100% of the rights to multiple buyers. Patterson made out like a bandit. Hell, I bet he sold more copies of his book, too.

Ask anyone who has ever participated in a murder trial about the role of sightings.

Ask that guy who got gunned down in London because he got mistaken for an armed terrorist about the reliablity of witness testimony. You keep forgetting that sightings have been investigated and that the evidence is either inconclusive or is shown to be something else.
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I should clarify that the mention of “proof” in my list of things that Patterson’s footage got him was an undeleted reminder to put in a link. Sorry for any confusion.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Atomic:

“Please provide evidence of these claims.”

As soon as I see the evidence that Patterson did this. (He didn’t. That’s not a fact, it’s a challenge. I will be so delighted when I read about how he did it, it will totally drown out any disappointment I might otherwise feel. It will be, simply, one of history’s greatest accomplishments by any individual.)

“I’ve already laid out why movie producers don’t give a crap about something being completely realistic, lighting, etc. You merely assume it isn’t possible and I have facts to back me up.”

Not sure what those facts are, or what they are backing up. Movie producers most certainly DO give a crap about realism. Do you watch movies? Why in heaven’s name, with the budgets they have, would they not do the best they can do? Why in heaven’s name would someone do this much better, for a return that was not even peanuts by comparison? What you saw in Hollywood ape costumes was the absolute best money could buy. Because they were the only ones with both the interest and the money!

“you kept rambling about it looking like an ape and ratios.”

Now see, no offense meant here, but when someone doesn’t get something that fundamental and that critical, I start to worry. No rambling went on there. You really didn’t get that? Uh oh. It really is something any high school math student can get: you compare the relative lengths and sizes of body components right there in the stills. This really isn’t hard, and no absolute measurements of the actual size, length, height, or volume of anything are required. You, um, REALLY don’t get this…?

“The hair’s too short to conceal a suit? How do you know? How short are we talking? How did you determine that measurement?”

I’ll determine what I should say as soon as you point to anywhere I mentioned this at all.

“How can you determine how much Patterson can raise? How can I tell what money he could get or how much a storeowner would charge? I’ve already got to second-guess one guy and I really don’t want to have to second guess you two, either.”

Sorry, but you really need to tell me how the guy who did not do this did this. He COULD NOT do this. Krantz proved that; as he described what he was seeing in the film - stuff you’d have to have been an expert on to get right - he said he saw Patterson glaze over, like a student who was trying to stay with him and failing. (He was an instructor, so trust me, he knew what he was seeing.) Patterson did not, could not, do this.

“How can I give facts if I’m second-guessing?”

It’s a neat dodge to hold one side to evidence while you just get to second-guess. Proponents have provided the evidence. It has to be debunked. Believe it or not, the proponents have to prove nothing; they’ve given science everything it needs to confirm the animal. Whether science wants to do that is up to science.

“Besides Bob H. and Philip Morris.”

Probably the least believable confessions ever made. To think that either of these guys had anything to do with this, based on what they said, is credulous and naive. They didn’t admit to anything; they blatantly ruled themselves out. Occam says: 15-minute fame grabs, both.

“All you know is that Patterson didn’t have a steady job and often borrowed money. You don’t know how he spent the borrowed money or if he did anything to get more money. He wasn’t on the street in a cardboard box, so he had to have been getting money.”

Compared to Patterson, I’m rich. To do that costume would break me, before I even made it. Finding the guy who could fill it? All the money I’d have, and then some, just for that. And it wouldn’t happen. This is where the high-school student has to come in to help with ratios.

“Patterson made out like a bandit.”

Died like one too. Wonder if he managed to hock the TV.

“You keep forgetting that sightings have been investigated and that the evidence is either inconclusive or is shown to be something else.”

Show me the evidence that even a significant minority of sasquatch encounter reports have been so disposed of. That’s not the proponents’ job; that’s YOURS.
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
As to Crowley, wrong links. He’s referring to specific trackways to which I say: Delete ‘em, no problem. Polluted, and besides, proponents don’t need ‘em.

Here’s the link you want:

http://www.sasquatchonline.com/content/view/84/29/

Another thing: I kinda like Crowley. But he needs to sever his James Randi link. That site is not skepticism; it’s scoffticism.

As to Skookum: the link you cite has a notation at the top that its neutrality is “disputed.” No kidding; no mention of Swindler at all. I’d love to see him debate those guys; I’d pay.

As to Goodall: careful here. You wouldn’t want to debate her. When you mention “stories of numerous sightings and hair samples as evidence?” then say something about Dynel, you’re putting words in people’s mouths. Did she mention Dynel? Do you know what samples she’s talking about? And as I have many times said (see, Jane’s smart like me): the sighting reports are the most compelling evidence for the sas. And not just sightings (I should say “encounter reports”). Jane also mentions similar behaviors and sounds being noted by people thousands of miles apart who are definitely not comparing notes.

RSR!
DWA responds: July 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
jerrywayne:

Thompson’s print finds were fourteen by eight inches. I wasn’t there and Thompson didn’t take photos. (He would have had to wait like fifty years.) But that is way bigger than any known bear.

Here’s Thompson’s journal entry for January 7th, 1811:

“I saw the track of a large Animal - has 4 large Toes abt 3 or 4 In long & a small nail

[note: not claws]

at the end of each. The Ball of his foot

[note: bears have no such structure, but people, and, um, sasquatch do]

sank abt 3 In deeper than his Toes - the hinder part of his foot did not mark well. The whole is about 14 In long by 8 In wide & very much resembles a large Bear’s Track. It was in the Rivulet in about 6 In snow.

When proceeding up the Athabasca River to cross the mountains, in company with….Men and four hunters, on one of the channels of the River we came to the track of a large animal, which measured fourteen inches in length by eight inches in breadth by a tape line. As snow was about six inches in depth the track was well defined, and we could see it for a full hundred yards from us, this animal was proceeding from north to south. We did not attempt to follow it, we had not time for it, and the Hunters, eager as they are to follow and shoot every animal, made no attempt to follow this beast, for what could the balls of our fowling guns do against such an animal? Report from old times had made the head branches of this River, and the Mountains in the vicinity the abode of one, or more, very large animals, to which I never appeared to give credence; for these reports appeared to arise from that fondness for the marvellous so common to mankind: but the sight of the track of that large a beast staggered me, and I often thought of it, yet never could bring myself to believe such an animal existed, but thought it might be the track of some Monster Bear.”

In other words, he did what so many have done since: he tried to make himself believe he was looking at sign of a known animal.

As to the four toes: could be any number of reasons for that. All toes don’t mark in every track; hammer toe; lost toe due to the everyday vicissitudes of traveling in the wild barefoot…I wasn’t there.

And I’d never consider this anything other than something pretty damn interesting.

But Bigfoot ain’t just 50. And it ain’t just Thompson.
mystery_man responds: July 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Rbhess- I suppose I was a tad on the snippy side with you too, so perhaps I deserved it, and maybe I do indeed have you wrong. I wasn’t trying to play any sort of authority card, merely mentioning it because people on these sites often jump to conclusions and condescend based on possibly offbase perceptions.

Again, I might be wrong, but the overall feeling I got from your posts is that someone questions Patterson’s ability to make this film and you say “Nope, goes against the scientific model of the world, it’s a hoax. Science demands that it is a hoax.”. For me, this is just not a satisfactory response to some of the genuine questions about the PG footage that have been put forward and I want to see how the hoax was logistically possible in my effort to ascertain whether indeed it could not have been a hoax or not. I am sure that as knowledgeable as you seem to be, you have a lot of thoughts on the matter. Sure, there is no way to provide the evidence required, but there have been some very legitimate doubts voiced as to whether Patterson could have pulled off this hoax and I think it is interesting to discuss them rather than saying that without evidence, it is a hoax. Where’s the fun in that?

There are skeptics out there and on this site that go to great lengths to support why they think such and such is not possible or a hoax without saying “No, I’m a skeptic, sir. I need not show you a shred of proof”. Daniel Loxton, AtomicMremonster, and others often provide very good information to support their ideas that this could be a hoax and why Bigfoot may not exist and I enjoy these posts immensely. Ban Radford, who has often been lambasted for being a strict debunker or “scoftic”, wrote a book on Lake Monsters and even he goes through lengths to show evidence of how people can misrepresent water phenomena or how hoaxes can be achieved. I think these people are very scientific minded and there is nothing unscientific at all about wanting to support skeptic ideas. From what you have been saying, I could write the shortest skeptical book on cryptozooloy ever written.

Chapter 1-
Bigfoot has no evidence to support it and does not jibe with the present scientific model of the world and therefore is pretty much assured to not exist. Being a skeptic, I need not say why I think so as science is on my side. Show me evidence.
The End.

Thankfully, the good skeptical articles and books I have read do not stop there and go on to debunk different claims in a scientific manner, with insights into how people have been duped or tracks were faked, etc. Pretty much all of the things I was saying I wanted to see more of before my knowledge of science was called into question.Sure, as you have gone to great lengths to point out, in the strictest sense of the word, they are not required to do so, and that it is up to the proponents to provide evidence, but nevertheless it is useful. I wish that some of the doubts about the Patterson would be addressed rather than, “it is most likely a fake because there is no evidence it is real. End of story.” I think being a skeptic can utilize science too, to further illustrate their points rather than sit back and wait for the evidence to come to them. This is the gist of what I was saying before.

I appreciate all of your input here, and make no mistake that I think you make good points. Science has always built upon its knowledge by pursuing things that at first were not known to exist, I am no physicist but that whole field actively pursues things such as the Higgs Boson particles which have not been so much as glimpsed, have no hard evidence, yet their existence could explain so much. For me, if Bigfoot exists, it would explain a lot of the puzzling circumstantial evidence for me in a similar fashion. Of course right now there is every possibility that Bigfoot is not real, but I hope more scientists try to at least actively pursue the smoke to the fire, whatever that may be.
Lyndon responds: July 19th, 2007 at 7:31 am
jerrywayne,

You make a good point. However your point supposes that I am arguing that hairy bipedal hominids are widespread all over the United States with considerable regional variations. I’m not. As of now, I restrict my arguments to the PNW and into Canada and southern Alaska. This is the sasquatch and sasquatch/bigfoot reports are pretty well consistently persuasive in this portion of North America. It cannot be argued that they are not.

I just do not see the same kind of and/or amount of evidence outside this area as inside it. I don’t argue the Skunk Ape exists as I am not convinced it exists as I am convinced the sasquatch of the PNW etc exists.

One thing at a time. If I see footage of the Skunk Ape on the same level as the P/G footage and if I read of persuasive sighting reports and trackways that are on the same level as those I have studied from the PNW etc etc then I might become more convinced of the Skunk Ape. As of yet, I am not.

Now, I’m not saying that there are not areas outside the PNW etc where hairy bipeds inhabit but in my opinion the evidence for this is not as persuasive nor as consistent as it is for those areas inside the PNW and adjacent areas.
DWA responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hey teach, can I do the three reasons again? They changed.

The discussion here led me to look up the terms “skeptic” and “skepticism.”

Skeptic: one who instinctively or consistently doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conslusions.

Skepticism: The philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty.

I think the following can be considered “generally accepted conclusions” (or at least the ones the public has been told to swallow so as not to appear nuts):

1. P/G is faked.

2. Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

I’m not touching the second one here. But I see a lot of childlike acceptance that P/G was, or could easily have been, faked - exactly the sort of thing a true skeptic would never do. In fact, I’ve been accused right here on this thread of being a P/G acolyte, something that tells me the accusers aren’t truly acquainted with skepticism. A skeptic is a devil’s advocate; he points out why the emperor’s clothes may not truly be so stylish. In fact, given that “fake” seems a generally accepted conclusion, it is, by definition, the one a skeptic should be attacking most strongly!

Which is why I do it, and why mystery_man seems to be doing it as well. When one actually thinks about how the P/G hoax had to have been done, on the ground, one sees that it ain’t simple at all. And this is where GIT comes in. I truly believe that much of the “faked” commentary I read here simply assumes the sasquatch to be so implausible that history’s best - and most implausible - hoax is an easy alternative conclusion. I see Matt Crowley, a really really smart guy, doing it. And I see people here who seem really, really smart doing it as well. It’s a belief blinker; and I know how those can be. I see the animal as highly plausible; frequently seen; and getting no serious scientific attention worth mentioning. This will add up, easily, to an undocumented animal - that lots and lots of pepole know exists.

If, that is, it does. And I think proponents have gone as far as they need to go; they have made the case for serious scientific investigation into the possibility.

But if you are really a skeptic, you need to address my Top Reasons the P/G Hoax Scenario Doesn’t Scan - and make it scan, if you can.

1. John Chambers, a known credit taker demanding big bucks, died denying he’d done it; lost the suit; and did the work for free for a two-bit cowboy poorer than my seven-year-old.

2. The Morris guy simply shows no evidence of being good enough to do this. Occam says: 15-minute fame grab.

3. Bob H. doesn’t even come close to describing the suit he wore. Occam etc.

4. Patterson died claiming it to be real; Gimlin will too. That Patterson may not have been the straightest of arrows does not warrant tarring Patty with that brush; Gimlin is simply not the kind of guy who would do this. (As Oscar Wilde said: it is a shallow person indeed who does not judge by appearances.)

5. The thing in that suit lives there, in that skin. Its movements and attitude say so. It knows exactly where it is and where it is going.

6. Horses don’t dump riders for a man in a suit almost a football field away. If you RSR, you know the extreme behavior of that horse has counterparts in thousands of sasquatch encounters.

As m_m has said over and over: you just can’t do coulda woulda shoulda. You are held to the same standards of evidence as the proponents, because your proposition is (1) in direct oppostion to theirs and (2) equally implausible, if not more. If you do not get this, you don’t understand what skepticism is.

You can’t just accept. Children accept. Skeptics question.

I’m tired of this thread. New thread, please.

Oh. m_m: great posts. It’s tough herding cats, ain’t it?

And thanks to everybody else because, OK, it was fun. Hey, why else would I do it?
DWA responds: July 19th, 2007 at 9:56 am
jerrywayne:

Yes, I am tired of this thread, but more thoughts on Thompson.

His description doesn’t sound like someone finding bear tracks. Such descriptions usually start with “we chanced upon Trackes of a quite grande Beare…” Thompson first gives us a detailed blow by blow of what they looked like, starting with the size. Why bother if he was sure it was a bear? “Way bigger than any known bear” might be weetad exag, but not much. That’s one of the biggest bears, of any species, on record.

Thompson describes nails and a ball, things people don’t say about bear tracks. And you can smell, coming off the screen, his efforts to shoehorn the find into what he knew. He didn’t sound like somebody given to Big New Animals; he took anything other than the concrete very lightly. This seemed to really disturb him.

As I said: Bigfoot evidence? Who cares. This is why I think the CURRENT sightings are most compelling; they give us a chance to confirm. What chance does this give us?

But maybe-sasquatch? Sure, I can go with that.
mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Seems this thread is winding down, and I wonder if we are any farther along than we were 40 years ago when this footage was put forth? Still mostly a good exchange of ideas and I am big enough to admit that I have learned some things from it that I perhaps did not think about as thoroughly as I had hoped. I have said before on this site that I am not really that interested in being “right” or taking sides but rather in the truth that may be waiting to be discovered. I apologize to anyone to whom I seemed to be venting.

Rbhess- I think that you and I actually agree on quite a lot and you are right that no amount of qualifications can absolve one from fallibility. We are only human, after all, with passions that sometimes over ride logic. I hope that we have not gotten off on the wrong foot, as I find your input to be valuable and wish to discuss these things in the future with you. We have some things in common, and maybe I am not putting it in as eloquently a way as you. Here are some things that we agree on-

1) The PG footage is not proof in and of itself that there is a hairy hominid. It is compelling, yes, but not proof and it will never be seen as such until there is something to support proponents claims on it beyond saying that it must be a sasquatch. Until then, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’ve said it before on this site and we are in full agreement there.

2) The footage is compelling and we are both not fully willing to write it off. Despite the lack of proof that this is what proponents claim, this footage still makes us wonder. Nothing admissible to science as concrete, but enough to keep you at 70/30 and me at about the same.

3) The burden is on opponents to supply evidence for their hypotheses. This is what must be done in any field of science, I agree. If the evidence is solid, it will stand up to the criticism and peer review. Through all of these exchanges, it may have been missed that I have thought this all along.

The only thing I really see us disagreeing on is the extent to which skeptics should engage proponents and the willingness of scientists to dedicate time to investigating the circumstantial evidence that is there.

You think that skeptics do not need to say anything, while I enjoy hearing what skeptics have to say about how proponent theories may not hold water. I probably read skeptical publications as much as I read sites like this and the exchange just is not the same for me if the discussion stops at “give me proof”. As far as science goes, you are probably right in that the perceived ostracism may not always be there. If we forget about Meldrum’s initial threatened tenure, we can still say that there are scientists involved in cryptozoology that are not losing their day jobs and that Jane Goodall has not suffered many ill effects for endorsing the idea of Bigfoot. Indeed, what scientist WOULDN’T want to be in on such a find? Still, in my own experience, I think there may be at least a perceived taboo for some on this area of inquiry which may be enough to stop some from trying or sticking to “safer” projects. Granted, this is largely a matter of opinion and I absolutely could be wrong. The way I see it, though, is that many scientists are more indifferent than I feel is totally warranted.

I guess maybe my post earlier was just lamenting out loud and perhaps with a little emotion on why there are not more scientists out there trying or who consider the scenario of Bigfoot as a worthy undertaking. I agree the evidence for Bigfoot is shaky, but good scientific inquiry has been made on initially shaky evidence before. I feel waiting for some hiker to put forth the evidence that will send scientists out in droves is for me somewhat at odds with the idea of going out and testing new ideas. I respect scientists like Meldrum, and others like him, who are actively trying to provide and verify the hard evidence needed by science to back up his claims and in my opinion, there are enough compelling things out there to warrant further such active scientific investigation when it comes to sasquatch. I wish there were more like him.

This has been a wonderful discussion for the most part and I thank everyone for their input on this one. Many good points made and things to think about from these posts and that is never a bad thing for anyone.
rbhess responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am
DWA:

You have so utterly lost me I don’t even know where to begin. You aver to me that you don’t believe in Sasquatch/Bigfoot, and that you don’t believe “Patty” is an uncatalogued animal… and yet in another breath you’re saying that Patterson “CAN’T” have made that suit or had it made, and have said, in essence, that it’s so unlikely that it’s a suit as to be close to impossible… therefore directly implying that it has to be a real animal.

I mean… my only reaction to your contradictory stances is… huh?

But let’s reign this in and leave the existence of an undiscovered, upright anthropoid ape in the Americas out of this, and tighten things back down to strictly the Patterson film. You keep saying over and over that it can’t be a suit. Do you not? That Patterson couldn’t have afforded to make it or have it made. Right?

Assuming this is so (it seems to me that this is what you’ve repeatedly said) then I again must point out to you than in stating such you are in fact rendering an opinion, something science does not as a rule do. But never mind that, and let’s re-focus yet again: it is your opinion that it cannot be a suit, and so you feel the onus is tranferred over to skeptics, who must prove to you that it’s a suit.

This is a reversal, in fact, of Occam’s Razor, a reversal which you, in baldfaced fashion, are employing because it serves your firmly made up mind and your stance. Sorry, but again I have to point out to you, it doesn’t work that way.

Now in a way I sympathize with you, because I too find the scenario hard to accept at times, that the Patterson film is simply a hoax. But that’s why successful hoaxes work; if they weren’t believable, they’d fail right off the bat, or soon after.

Where you seem to get lost is, the Patterson film cannot exist in a vacuum. Now, as yet there is no evidence strong enough to support the existence of this animal. In fact, the supposition of its existence challenges the prevailing biological and paleontological view that no such ape-like creature ever existed in the Americas and does not now exist. Science doesn’t say it DOESN’T exist and NEVER existed… it simply says that there’s hard evidence, and until there is, the matter rests with “we don’t know.”

Now someone comes along and shoots a film of said unknown animal, which is clearly not a bear or any other known animal—so it’s obviously something else. Well the fact of the matter is, it’s shot at a distance, it stands upright like a human being, is bipedal like a human being and does not walk in a way that would be impossible for a human being. The height of it is clearly within the range for a human being. And we know suits can be constructed that, especially from a distance, can look very convincing on film. Plus, the advantage of such a suit in this film is, it doesn’t have to look like a known animal. It’s much easier to “imitate” an unknown or imaginary animal since no one knows how it walks, moves, and looks. It’s different if one has to imitate a known animal, like a gorilla… we know what gorilla’s look like, know how they move, etc., and an imitation gorilla, unless it was exceptionally well-done, will show itself.

NOW… all that taken into account, that it’s movements and size are not out of the range of human accomplishment—and bearing in mind that humans are the only upright primates we know—it therefore remains, in Occam’s Razor fashion, to ask what is the simpler explanation here? Is this more likely to be a film of an unknown animal that challenges the entire structure of modern biology, or is it more likely to be a human being in a suit? Clearly the answer is, it’s more likely to be a human being in a suit.

YOU then chime in with all these objections, that it can’t be a suit, that Patterson can’t have done it, etc., and challenge skeptics to PROVE it was or could have been a suit. And again, I point out to you, that’s a reversal of the scientific method. You have no PROOF that it couldn’t have been a suit, you merely feel that circumstantially it’s close to impossible (apparently). That’s your opinion. Others feel differently. I’ve said myself, if it IS a suit, and IS just a hoax, then Patterson did a hell of a job and deserves history’s applause. But your stance that it CAN’T be a suit is unscientific and is based on nothing but your determined judgement. In that, YOU are the one being unscientific here, not the skeptics.

”Well, no, because that would be your third opinion, which nobody has offered: that’s a guy in a suit. I hope you’re not telling me that scientists are reserving judgment about all the obvious guys in suits on Youtube. Because if they are, well, wow.”

You completely lost me here and I can’t make out what point you’re trying to get at.

”What I can’t understand about so-called skeptics is their rabid insistence that no research into the sasquatch is allowed until one wanders into a hillbilly’s root cellar and locks himself in! Now, THAT seems like a personal stake to me.”

I actually cannot fathom how you can make statements like this. What skeptic (or anyone) says “research isn’t allowed” into Bigfoot? It’s not about what is ALLOWED, DWA, it’s about what can be studied scientifically and what can’t. I think part of your problem is that you have no idea how scientists work. They’re not given umpteen number of dollars and carte blanche to do what they want with it; neither are they paid to simply indulge in any research they see fit, with no oversight or confirmation of their work. There is a finite amount of money out there that scientists must compete for, in order to do their research of choice. In order to obtain those funds, normally through the grant route, they must write proposals and show a certain amount of work that can lead to a greater body of work, to a certain end. They compete with other researchers trying to obtain the same funds. In order to accomplish this, they need to have something to compete with. They need to have material, hard evidence, to have performed experiments, etc. etc. which they then can write up and present for consideration. Very few scientists can just afford to go out and indulge in this happenstance, they need to build upon the work of others and to have something in hand to work with. A phenomenon such as Bigfoot, for which there is as yet no hard evidence, is therefore a huge risk to study. Even if a scientist wanted to mount such a study, think about the logistics of it… the cost of a search, of materials, technology, time, salaries to be paid… these things just ordinarily cannot be justified on a total unknown. Now sure, someone like Grover Krantz and a few others, on their own, managed to do some research, and someone can build on what they did. But that kind of thing is usually piecemeal and rarely productive. Clearly it’s not as simple as saying “I shall mount an expedition to find Bigfoot.” You think a “true” skeptic should call for research into Bigfoot… but you entirely miss the point that someone, somewhere, has to provide the money for such a thing, and in order to obtain that money, some scientist somewhere has to present a good enough proposal that beats out other people trying for that money. Moreover, most scientists want to study something which they feel they have a reasonable chance of actually studying, and they want to get somewhere with their careers. You don’t seem to see the risk involved here, to someone, if they stake 5 or 10 years chasing after an animal that no one is even sure exists. They might end up with nothing in hand, and let me assure you that’s bad, in the university setting, and it’s bad for someone’s career. Most scientists want to contribute to knowledge, and I’m sure many would be glad to take the great leaps into the unknown—but it’s a huge risk in any field, and they have to be willing to take that risk.. AND someone has to front the money.

”THAT is a personal stake, my friend. Or in the alternative, it’s treating science like an angry god whose robes should not be soiled by our impertinent questions. Which is, um, a VERY personal stake. It’s OK, they let your eldest child live, I’ve tested it.”

I’ll ignore that last little thing, whatever it was supposed to be, and point out to you how melodramatic and lacking in understanding your statements are, of the business of science. Read fewer juvenile sci-fi novels or wherever you’re getting your attitudes from, and start realizing that science is about pragmatism just like any other human endeavor.

Bring them something to study, something that has a real chance of getting somewhere, and they’ll take it up, providing someone hands out the funds. Otherwise you’re asking people to take a huge professional risk with possibly no pay-off.
DWA responds: July 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am
rbhess:

There are points in there, and, um…stuff in there. And things you’re still stuck on.

But catch you on the flip side, because I am really tired here. You can just re-read until it becomes clear, or not.

And as I said to Atomic: “Patterson didn’t do it” isn’t a fact. It’s a challenge, one to which anyone who truly values skepticism must rise.

Onward.
mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Rbhess- I suppose you are very right in your reasons why it is hard to just go out and mount an expedition. Even putting something like this together to study known phenomena can be tricky and even then there is no guarantee of results, let alone when putting the massive resources and personal risk into trying to document an unknown animal of which there is scant evidence and prior research to build upon. Sigh. It is what it is. Some of those reasons I have also stated on past threads and of course are very relevant and very true. But one can hope. Someone has to get the ball rolling and I guess that we will see what the researchers who are trying to build a case can come up with. Until then, discussions like these are a great diversion.
rbhess responds: July 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Mystery_Man:

I agree…. and it’s a shame we can’t just find out these things, that we can’t just get after these mysteries and get to the bottom of them (but after all, mysteries are fun, and solving them takes some of the fun away). On the other hand we’ll have to accept also that, the longer we go without someone really “discovering” Bigfoot, the less likely it is that he really exists. But even then it’ll never be a certainty; the Pacific Northwest is vast, and even if its territory is encroached upon, a semi-intelligent creature could still manage to elude us. It’d become a greater and greater long-shot… but it would take a long time to reach impossibility.

On the other hand, the sad thing could be that such an animal does exist, and it’s being driven to extinction even as we speak. And then we may never know if it existed; not all life leaves a trace in the fossil record, after all… it’s only happenstance.

Honestly the only thing that’s ever bothered me, really, about Bigfoot, is its upright posture. It’s supposed locale, the Pacific Northwest, is perfect if the thing really came over with other megafauna during the glacial period; it’s ability to hide in this vast region is understandable, since it’s still largely uninhabited (I live in the East and people out this way just can’t get their heads around how immense the West is, what huge territories we’re talking about); it’s never bothered me in the slightest that a body has never been found, because of the vastness of the region, as already noted, and the fact that nature readily disposes of animal remains, and one is very hard-pressed to come upon the corpses of even common and well known animals in the wild. The lack of any similar animals in the fossil record is troubling, and can’t be passed over, but one can always say (as I said above) that not every animal ends up leaving a fossil behind.

But the one true oddity about Bigfoot is his upright posture. This just doesn’t fit. Other than man there is no known primate that’s attained this kind of true bipedalism. That’s immensely bothersome to me. It keeps at least a couple of Bigfoot’s large toes in the “Myth of the Wild Man” camp.
DWA responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
rbhess:

Did have to say one last thing, seeing yours and m_m’s last exchange.

Believe it or not, you and I agree on pretty much what you and m_m agree on. With a jot to the left or right here and there.

And hopefully we’ll pick it up down the road.
Daniel Loxton responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
My top three reasons for thinking the Patterson film is a fake:

1) It too closely follows the Roe model (including that famous and dramatic over-the-shoulder-look-while-walking-away), while Roe too radically departs from previous sasquatch stories.

The P/G film looks like Roe-the-movie. Unfortunately, there is no particular reason to believe Roe.

I can’t rule out the (in my view, very slim) possibility that both cases accurately record a real animal: however, the Roe case is weak on the face of it, which weakens Patterson’s film by implication. There is nothing whatsoever to corroborate Roe’s testimony: no physical evidence, no other witnesses. As I written elsewhere, we don’t even know if Roe could keep a straight face while telling his story, as no one in the Bigfoot world ever spoke to him in person — or even by phone.

2) The P/G footage is consistent with an amateur project made using a crude, home-made suit.

We know that home-made sasquatch suits have been used successfully to hoax random witnesses (Mission), and to create films persuasive to experienced Bigfoot researchers (Bossburg). With many such suits and films, one necessarily has to be the most convincing, just by dumb luck alone.

I’m convinced that with a bit of work and a little planning, a bit of cleverness (which Patterson certainly had) and some luck, even a bad suit could look sufficiently real under the circumstances of the filming of P/G.

Four decades of argument about Hollywood prosthetic appliances seem to me to miss the point. A better Hollywood analogy might be matte painting, in which vague, impressionistic, almost sketched paintings are accepted as photo-real to our eyes.

Calls for recreations also seem to me to miss the point. If the question is, “Can a guy in a suit persuasively resemble a real sasquatch?” we know from other cases that the answer is definitely “yes.” If the question is, “Can a TV crew create something that somewhat resembles the Patterson film?” the answer is, “sure, that’s happened too.”

However, if the question is, “Can a TV crew create a near-perfect copy of the Patterson film?” the answer is, “Probably not, at least on any reasonable budget.”

This is because it is often much harder to copy something than to do it in the first place. If I scratch out a letter in my handwriting, that’s easy, but forging it would be difficult. If I fall off a log and break my leg, no reasonable amount of Hollywood stunt-hours can recreate that precise fall. If I throw a bucket of paint at a wall, the result will be unique, unmatchable, one of a kind — even, especially, if the dumb-luck result should wind up looking like a face, camel, or sasquatch.

3) Patterson was a crook.

Being a scoundrel doesn’t mean he couldn’t have seen a real sasquatch, but it sure gives me pause. No one on either side of this thinks Patterson’s personal history helps the P/G case. And, while people were quick to denounce the Long book, no one seems to take the position (except as regards the controversial Heironimus and Morris stories) that the tremendous weight of damaging eyewitness testimony about Patterson was inaccurate — nor that Long made any of it up.
mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Rbhess- It certainly is a shame.

By the way, I reread your exchanges with AtomicMrEmonster, and on several occasions you mention certain “theories” on how the suit was faked when disagreeing with him. See, like I said skeptics have theories too, some that can even be considered ridiculous by other skeptics. This is what I was trying to say before. I also find it interesting how you seem to have morphed from being an advocate of the usefulness of skeptics showing how the suit was faked (not to prove it, but to show how it might be done), to saying that it wasn’t a skeptics job to do that. It seems to me that some of the things I was trying to articulate in my posts are very similar to your ideas earlier in this thread. Another thing we agree on. I am curious, do you still think that skeptics should go out and try to reproduce the hoax, like I have been saying they should try to do, or not? Back to the matter at hand. Good to see we are back on the topic of speculating about what Patty could be if it is real.

The fossils have never bothered me either. If you consider what a rare process the fossilization process is to begin with, then compound that with the vastness of the creature’s alleged habitat, and the fact that we have certainly not documented all of the animals that have ever existed, a lack of fossil evidence is not that odd or jarring. I do think that the lack of fossils contradicts theories I have heard that Bigfoot actually evolved in America, which I think is stretching scientific suspension of disbelief to new heights. I am willing to believe we have not found fossils of Bigfoot, but in this alternative scenario, one has to explain the far fetched notion of how a whole evolutionary line has left no trace and this does not fly with me. So I too think that the idea that Bigfoot came over the land bridge is really one of the only feasible possibilities.

The lack of a carcass is a tad harder for me to swallow. Scavengers, and decomposition make short work of animal remains and perhaps they slink off to some remote locale to die or carry off their dead, who knows? But regardless of decomposition and the rarity of animal carcasses, known animal bodies HAVE been found, even remarkably rare ones. With the amount that sasquatch have been spotted near roads or towns, I am surprised none have ever been accidentally killed by a truck. This can be explained, and I have my own ideas that I’ve talked about before on this site, but it is one thing that sort of pushes me into the skeptic camp. I know of no other animal apparently witnessed by so many people, that has never produced a carcass. One good skeptic comment I heard somewhere was “Bigfoot is everywhere, and nowhere.” This is suspicious to me in some ways and as you say, the more time that goes by, the more suspicious it gets.

The upright posture does not bother me all that much as it could be explained if this is not an ape we are talking about, but rather a type of early hominid. This idea has a whole other set of problems, but it is a possibility. I do not feel we are necessarily talking about an ape here.
mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I should go further on my post and say not only an animal being encroached upon by humans and seen by so many that hasn’t produced a carcass, but even a single piece of definitive, indisputable physical evidence that science can really latch onto.
rbhess responds: July 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Mystery_man:

Let me explain one thing, I haven’t “morphed” in any way, when I was speaking to Atomic, I was speaking to another skeptic. Furthermore, I qualified my statements and questions by saying that I personally thought it was probably a suit, but if so, it was fantastic and constituted one of the best hoaxes in history. Now, I felt that in speaking to DWA, I was no longer speaking to another skeptic but to someone who didn’t understand the scientific process. I blundered by lumping statements made by DWA in with statements made by you, which was my mistake. In fact I may have said things to you that I meant for DWA, I’m not sure now.

Anyway, sure, I still want to see someone reproduce the Patterson film faithfully. Reason being, I think if it were done, it would show a lot of people that Patterson could do it, and removed some of the mystique there. Also, I just want to know how he did it. He came up with a suit that looks great on camera, and I think if someone else were to duplicate it, and show what a difficult thing to do it was, it would also allow us to applaud Patterson a bit, to say, “hey, this guy really did a hell of a job at fooling us all these years.”

But you know, saying I want to see someone do it is different from demanding that someone do it, in order to PROVE that it could be done… and in particular in order to counter someone who says it’s more likely that it was a real animal and not a man in a suit. My point there is that in the abstract, skepticism doesn’t have to “prove” anything. Those making extraordinary claims have to do the proving. And the reason I object to them demanding proof of the Patterson suit and such things is because it is, frankly, akin to something dangerous. I connect people who demand such proofs almost with those who demand proof of evolution; I don’t think they really want “proof” of anything–they simply want to divert us from proper science to serve their own agenda, which is warped. Now I’m not lumping Bigfoot believers in with creationists, please don’t think that. I’m just saying that there’s an element of the denial of science in there that troubles me. Ask me to show you how and why evolution works, or how and why it was more likely a suit in the Patterson film, but don’t tell me I must “prove” evolution to you, or “prove” that it’s a man in a suit. That kind of demand makes me very wary indeed. Wary, that is, of the person demanding such a thing.

But I don’t say this is the case with you, please understand, I’m not referring to you (and if you’re reading this, DWA, I’m not referring to you directly, either). I’m simply referring to a mindset that I find to be at best sloppy and at worst suspect.

I don’t feel that applies to you, as I’ve said, really, put my reactions down to the argument I was engaging DWA in, and you got pulled in there kind of accidentally. Sloppy of me, that.

I agree with your statements in the post above, and in fact I am less troubled by the lack of a carcass than you are. Again, the Pacific Northwest is VAST. Still, I do agree with you, the more time passes, the more troubling this becomes.

The upright posture still bothers me immensely. Even if we say Bigfoot is some kind of hominid—as you say, that opens up a whole ‘nother set of issues, even more troubling, to me.

I forgot—in the Patterson film I’m also bothered that this female Bigfoot displays what are clearly breasts. Unless I’m mistaken, no other primate possesses permanent breasts except human females. And if that’s a lactating female Bigfoot, (thus explaining the visible teats) then where are her offspring, who should be close by, even underfoot? Very odd that she was totally solitary. But I suppose there’s a million answers to that one.

And yet, even now when I watch that film, in the cleaned up, stabilized version, I still feel bothered. There’s something about the ponderous shudder of Patty’s whole body as she walks, that says “this is a very heavy creature.” And yet at the same time she seems ludicrous.

I still think it most likely that Patterson faked this thing, but my admiration for his skill and talent is almost unbound.
DWA responds: July 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
jerrywayne:

And one more thing that may be relevant to Thompson. Maybe he saw tracks like some of these:

http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/fxnlmorph.html
AtomicMrEMonster responds: July 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Wow this is big…. Since there’s a very good chance I’m going to do the last post, I’ll keep this as brief as possible. I’m just posting since I want to be polite and respond to questions directed at me.

DWA:

I’m glad that I just misunderstood about you issuing challenges; I thought that you were saying that theories weren’t allowed and that your opinion trumped all. I like to have (and work better) when I have guidelines to work with, which is why I asked about budget estimates and the like.

As for ratios, I’ve seen complaints about those and alternate interpretations and I wanted to figure out the most likely one to work with.

As for movie companies and realism, I said COMPLETE realism. As long as they like the suit, they don’t have to care about moving muscles or shoulder proportions. Think HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS; they focused on the snazzy cable-controlled mask. That, coupled with a non-ratty fursuit, was enough to make the audience think of Harry as being real-looking; it’s like a magician’s slight of hand trick. On the other hand, some costumes on STAR TREK did use foam muscle-padding under the costumes’ “skin” and some gorilla suits used water bags to simulate muscles. It all depended on the people involved.

I should also note that referring to the makers of those suits as being the best money could buy isn’t exactly correct. The studios that churned out the most gorilla movies were nicknamed “Poverty Row studios” due to their low budgets. A studio’s low budget is a lot different from an individual’s “low budget; a movie with a million dollar budget is low budget by (modern) Hollywood standards, but a lot to an individual. Anyway, some would try to save a few bucks and speed up the shooting schedule by renting a costume. Guys like “Crash” Corrigan and Bob Burns made money by renting out their suits. If you look at this (incomplete) movie still gallery, you can see suits getting reused.

As for my questions about hair length, I merely brought them up since I wanted some guidelines and I know that’s the shortness of the hair is a common anti-hoax argument.

I have more details on the Skookum cast and Mr. Crowley’s research, but they’re on the JREF forums (with citations) and you don’t seem to want to go there. You can contact him to verify this.

As for Jane Goodall, I was pointing out that Dynel can be mistaken for real hair, even by experts and wasn’t saying that she said anything about it. I was going to offer to compile debunked sightings to see if I could reach a “significant minority,” but that will have to wait until another time. As will stuff on behaviors, noises, and various “costume stuff”
mystery_man responds: July 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Rbhess- Thank you for clearing that up. It seems I did get a bit caught in the crossfire. No hard feelings. I did not mean to seem like I was “demanding” the suit be reproduced, maybe my wording was not concise enough. I tried to get my my idea across before that it would help skeptics to illustrate how it could have been done and being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I can’t see how this would be a bad thing. To me, there are two possible outcomes really to trying to reproduce the suit under the same conditions and neither of them is a bad thing. If a reproduction was seriously attempted and failed to convince, well, it still does not prove that a suit was never done by Patterson and the skeptical arguments still stand. If the reproduction was a success, then it only sheds more light on how it was done and put to rest the proponent arguments that it cannot be done. Either way, the skeptics are not trying to prove or disprove anything, but rather out of curiosity to illuminate this fascinating case. I can see no real cons to trying to do it, and I am rather surprised that no one has attempted it in a detailed way in 40 years in order to share their findings on what it entailed. Through the whole exchange we had, we were actually in quite a bit of agreement.

Yes, the theory of early human ancestors has some problems too that I won’t get too much into here. But in the end I feel that if humans were able to cross into North America over the land bridge, then there is every possibility that surviving remnant populations of early humans could have done the same. It would certainly make more sense than proposing some sort of new bipedal ape that defies biology as we know it now. If I am to weigh which one I think is more likely, a totally unrepresented new type of bipedal ape, or a early bipedal human ancestor known to have existed, I would have to say that the likelihood is that if Bigfoot is real, it is more feasibly the latter.

Either way, this footage is not going to shed light on any of that and so it remains a curiosity. I’m with you in that although I think it very well could be a hoax, some aspects of it still smack of a real creature we are seeing here and it still instills some wonder in me. If it is a hoax, it is brilliant and I too commend Patterson for pulling it off. The answer may never be found, but I think this footage will be a topic of debate for a long time to come.
rbhess responds: July 20th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Atomic:

You know your stuff, pal. Sounds like we have the same taste in cheesy old monster movies. And I never knew Ray “Crash” Corrigan rented out his suit. I always thought he was just a stunt man or something. (I treasure my copy of It! The Terror from Beyond Space, which features Corrigan in a wonderfully cheesy, baggy monster suit… but surely you already know this).

Mystery_man:

Glad we got everything cleared up.

Another problem I have with the “hominid” idea is that our early hominid ancestors were smaller than us or at best roughly the same size. Certainly not appreciably larger. Yet even “Patty” is clearly a very hefty creature, and she’s middling by the scale of most Bigfoot reports. It seems to buck the ordinary evolutionary trends, that such a creature would migrate here and get larger over time. But if a descendant of Gigantopithecus, supposed to be a giant ape, (and thus a knuckle-walker) then why did our friend take to walking upright? Any way you look at it, Bigfoot just doesn’t seem to fit the patterns.
DWA responds: July 20th, 2007 at 9:22 am
rbhess:

See, I can come back to a thread, as long as it’s not really rehashing the same old [fertilizer].

1. Krantz thought Giganto was bipedal, using as his evidence a jawbone that seems to point to that kind of skull/spinal alignment. Whatever one thinks of Krantz and Bigfoot, he was as close as we’ve had to an expert on Gigantopithecus; it was his study of that ape that led him to conclude this one plausible.

2. I know Bergmann’s rule never got elevated to law status. But our hominid ancestors were, largely speaking, tropical. Animals in temperate-zone environs do tend to get bigger than tropical analogues (in homo sapiens it holds pretty true, too, although certainly no “law,” and the Eskimo would give you a pretty good argument).

3. Evolution really doesn’t have any “usual” patterns. Nothing involving random mutations over millions of years does. It’s not a blocker for me; it could have happened. How bats and dolphins and the aye-aye and the platypus happened is equally sticky. But they did. (Patterson faking Patty: even stickier. That didn’t. )
Ceroill responds: July 20th, 2007 at 10:13 am
rbhess: Personally I don’t have a big problem with the idea of a large primate or homonid walking upright, especially in light of recent ideas that the upright stance is more energy efficient. Of course this is pure speculation. Oh, and I think one of the best things about this site is the way that the people who write in here can debate and argue without taking it all personally, and not get into ‘flame wars’.
mystery_man responds: July 20th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Rbhess- Like I said, there are problems with the hominid theory and you mentioned a couple of them, but it is not fully out of the realm of possibility right now for me. I have several ideas on how it could and could not be possible, and I devil’s advocate with myself relentlessly about it. I love hearing people’s ideas and theories on this. I suppose we will end up discussing this on another thread sometime.

AtomicMrEmonster- We didn’t exchange too much here (unlike the lake monster threads), but as always, I think you are an intelligent skeptic. I may disagree with you from time to time, but you mostly handle it well and are not really one to vent. Even when you don’t agree, you are at least willing to hear people out and you back up your own arguments well. I don’t think anyone here utilizes links to the extent or effect that you do to illustrate their point. Keep it up.

Daniel Loxton- I respect a lot of your ideas and always look forward to your level headed takes on things. A thoughtful, well informed skeptic.

DWA- We have been on this site probably the longest and despite the duking out that has been going on here, you never tire of these things and stick to your guns. I like to read your posts as well and think you also provide some good points and things to think about. Your passion on this topic is mighty, so I sometimes think it may get a bit in the way of what you want to say, but I understand that about you, and I appreciate your input as always. We need more people with the sort of unbridled fire for this topic that you display. I think if you temper that passion a bit, your points will become clearer to those you want to reach. I know what you want to say, though, and thank you for your thoughts and kind words about my posts.

I think this thread is a contender for longest ever on this site. I love it!
DWA responds: July 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
m_m:

On this topic, passion seems to be something that’s lacking, at least where it needs to be applied. That’s what I am; it makes it fun for me; I’ll live with the risks.

I think cryptos tend to be TOO polite sometimes. (Like never taking the total lack of a reasonable hoax scenario properly to task.) This is a scientific debate. It does no good for either side to say: I have to provide no evidence, just shoot off.

But it IS fun. Here’s to more fun, and maybe some proof - one way or the other - down the road.
Lyndon responds: July 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I wonder if anybody can answer this question.

If the P/G footage was a hoax and Roger Patterson was a fraudster and yarn spinner then how come he never ever even claimed to have discovered any more sasquatch tracks, nevermind a sighting of a creature itself, in the years after the footage was taken??

Pretty damp squib of an an to a hoaxer’s like hey? He was still out ob the hunt for sasquatch, but never again claimed to have gotten so much as another sniff of one.

How about that? Not the indication of a hoaxer. I mean, take Ivan Marx for example. He kept on doing it and his hoaxes weren’t even good.

Patterson pulls off a blinder……..and never so much as hoaxes another footprint post ‘67???

LOL.
rbhess responds: July 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
DWA:

I can’t comment a whole lot on Krantz’s views on Gigantopithecus, since I haven’t delved into them that much. But my knowledge on the two (Krantz and the Giant ape) does allow me to make these statements: A) Grover Krantz, bless him, was on occasion a tad too credulous. B) Last I knew, all we had of Gigantopithecus were jawbones and partial skulls. It’s a bit much, then, to conclude that the thing walked upright. Yes, a skull can help determine this, but I’ve never heard of any conclusive finding about this. Moreover, it flies in the face of what we know about the standard evolution of locomotion. In the primate world, only man has achieved true bipedalism. Sure, another species could do it, but as we haven’t found one, the odds are against it. There’s certainly no conclusive proof that G. managed it. Plausible? Maybe, but odd as hell.

In addition, saying Krantz was “the closest thing we have to an expert on Gigantopithecus” is simply wrong. There are many experts who’ve made an extensive study of G.

Your point about Bergman doesn’t answer why a hominid ancestor or relative of ours would get so large, i.e., surpass us in size, greatly.

In point of fact, DWA, evolution does exhibit patterns, to an extent. As just one example, there is the history of tetrapods (including us). So far as we know, all tetrapods have retained the “5 projection plan” and have not evolved out of it in untold millions of years. There’s been tremendous variation, yes, but the pattern has remained the same. But even more specific, primates have kept to a pattern of body type and locomotion, particularly the great apes. Man is the only exception. It’s simply odd, then, and bucks the pattern, that Bigfoot should evolve bipedalism, when no other primate except our ancestors did so. Bipedalism is a drastic departure from the primate norm, not a trivial one.

There’s nothing particularly “sticky” about the bat or the dolphin; flight-ability has evolved repeatedly on earth, and the bat simply evolved into that niche. Flying squirrels are just one example of how an intermediary step between a non-flying and flying mammal might have looked, and how bat-flight might have been achieved. Dolphins are even less of a problem; I’m actually not even sure why you included them as an example of “sticky.”

It’s not that another bipedal primate isn’t possible; it’s just odd. I don’t say it’s a huge objection—just another item that gives me pause when I consider the likelihood of Bigfoot being real.

As for Patterson faking his film being “sticky”–I have yet to hear your conclusive argument for this, and since you earlier chose not to answer my last points directed your way, I consider my characterization of your views on this to be accurate.
DWA responds: July 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Lyndon: good point.

Now of course the counterpoint is: that doesn’t prove anything. But given the known history of sas hoaxers it is most certainly the major exception to the rule - particularly for a guy apparently known, correctly or not, as a crook. Everybody is straight up about something. And everything known about Patterson points to this: he was straight up when it came to this.

In fact, everything about a hoax, by known possible participants, seems a major exception to what is otherwise known about them. Or an addition made, because, well, it’s conceivable.

Well the sas is conceivable too. Maybe more so. Which is why the hoax hypothesis demands its own evidence.
rbhess responds: July 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Yeah Lyndon, that’s cute, but your point is flaccid at best and in fact needs a major workout. I could point to plenty of hoaxers who stopped at one stunt. Especially after achieving a masterstroke like Patterson’s film, if it is in fact fake.

Moreover, Roger Patterson died of cancer in 1972, only 5 years after he shot the film. There’s no telling what he might have done had he lived longer.

But everything points to Patterson being a savvy guy, if no great intellectual. If he did fake the film, then he knew it was a masterpiece and would have known that any additional activity on his part might have jeopardized its reputation. Of course, again, we don’t know… maybe had he lived we would have been treated to a late 70s or 80s Patterson film redux. “Patty Part Deux” as it were. We’ll never know.
DWA responds: July 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
rbhess:

You make valid points.

But remember: bats and dolphins only don’t look sticky because we know them to exist. We do know of other primates that evolved bipedalism, which doesn’t make it so “odd.” Just like flight-ability has evolved repeatedly on earth, so has bipedalism. Some lizards are extremely adept bipeds; numerous dinosaurs were; and look at birds, to say nothing of primates. (Hey, I’m sure your flight example included insects, so yep, apples and apples.)

Enough primates have evolved it that it’s not as much of a stretch as you make it sound that at least one other extant primate has.

As to Krantz: He got frustrated, more than once, and said things he shouldna. (Like claiming P/G genuine on one dimension only, the animal’s girth, the infamous ‘no human is built that broadly’.) But your statement doesn’t put anyone above him on the Giganto-authority scale; and that jawbone sure looks like it COULD come from a biped; and no one has made a conclusive case Giganto wasn’t.

As to a conclusive argument for Patterson: that’s proof that he faked it. If skeptics can come up with no evidence he did that’s held up, well, where can you expect proponents to go with that proposition? They’re busy looking for an animal, or they should be. Matt Crowley is right; the field has gotten stuck ‘fetishizing second-rate evidence.’ P/G has been so poisoned (and in the opinion of many, so unfairly) that we really need to be looking to current sighting data as the most compelling evidence, because one can search on that.

As to points you made in an earlier post about how tough a mainstream search would be to get started: I know all that, always have. That doesn’t excuse science. It’s still their job. Amateur proponents will not confirm the sas; and the most serious among them know this. Science confirms EVERYTHING; that’s how it works. Mainstream scientists with much at stake have gone sassing; and it seems to me that they keep eating. Following their lead should, really, not be that hard, particularly for a new generation of scientists who must surely know there’s new ground to be covered. Searching for this animal will advance scientific knowledge, whatever it turns up.
DWA responds: July 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I need to add to the above post:

One can talk of “our ancestors” as having been the only (known) species to evolve bipedality among primates. But that is still numerous species; some of them were evolutionary deadends (e.g. separate limbs on our branch, that apparently didn’t “evolve into” us); and, of course, the fossil record is always incomplete. And of course, the primate family tree is our own species’ construction, subject to change. One could see a future scientist claiming that some of those bipeds on it shouldn’t be where they are.

One could also add that man being the ONLY exception should strike one viewing the entire path of evolution as EXTREMELY odd. One would expect that not to be the case, I’d think.
Lyndon responds: July 21st, 2007 at 3:54 am
rbhss wrote:

Yeah Lyndon, that’s cute, but your point is flaccid at best and in fact needs a major workout.

No it doesn’t. It’s a fact. Roger Patterson never ever again claimed to have so much as found another track.

Where’s the workout needed?

I could point to plenty of hoaxers who stopped at one stunt.

Ah but they didn’t carrying on investigating the same subject as the earlier ‘hoax’. Patterson KEPT ON in the sasquatch field and visited and investigated alleged encounters and reports for the rest of his life.

A hoaxer of Patterson’s magnitude (and he must have been brilliant if it was hoaxed) would not have stopped there, particularly as he was still engaged in the subject until his death.

Especially after achieving a masterstroke like Patterson’s film, if it is in fact fake.

That is not logical reasoning. The fact is, the bigfoot investigators ‘fell for his hoax’ (as we are considering that it was a hoax, which I don’t beleiev it was) so it’s logical he would have at least made some more tracks to keep fooling them.

Moreover, Roger Patterson died of cancer in 1972, only 5 years after he shot the film. There’s no telling what he might have done had he lived longer.

Well he didn’t do ANYTHING regarding a bigfoot hoax in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971. Four years is a long time and during that time Patterson was still actively engaged in bigfoot research. Plenty of time to place a fake track here, a fake track there etc etc. It wouldn’t have taken much, for him. During that time he was almost suckered into falling for the Ivan Marx hoax around Bossburg with a supposed captured bigfoot and then almost suckered into a hoax with the Yeti in the himalayas, so that proves his sincerity and gullibility regarding bigfoot. He was being hoaxed himself and almost fell for it.

But everything points to Patterson being a savvy guy, if no great intellectual. If he did fake the film, then he knew it was a masterpiece and would have known that any additional activity on his part might have jeopardized its reputation. Of course, again, we don’t know… maybe had he lived we would have been treated to a late 70s or 80s Patterson film redux. “Patty Part Deux” as it were. We’ll never know.

It’s pointless saying what we don’t know in this matter. Let’s talk about what we DO know. The facts are, Patterson NEVER AGAIN claimed to find even bigfoot tracks, nevermind the creature itself so we know for a fact that Patterson didn’t hoax a damn thing in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Which of course, doesn’t add up and doesn’t make sense if he hoaxed the 1967 scenario. It doesn’t make sense at all.
Lyndon responds: July 21st, 2007 at 4:02 am
DWA,

You are correct. In fact the giganto jawbone points more towards bipedalism than it does not and the teeth are more like those of an omnivore (like say, the chimp) than they are of a specialised bamboo muncher… as some claim giganto was.

The facts are, there is no proof for anything regarding giganto, but the evidence is on Krantz’ side more than it isn’t.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 9:33 am
OK, one thing that will get me re-interested in a thread: slagging a post without backup.

C’mon, rbhess. You’re better than this. In fact, I’d say your response to Lyndon is the one that needs the workout. Because Lyndon’s right. The essential “skeptical” (it ain’t, it’s credulous and naive) problem with Patterson-as-Pattyfaker is that if he did it, it’s one of history’s most spectacular one-offs, virtually in a genre by itself. He had five years to follow up on it, and he didn’t do so much as fake a track? That’s never happened with any acknowledged sasfaker. Once they get started, they continue without letup. They get one in whenever they can.

Here’s what Occam says happened. Because it’s what the facts indicate:

1. Patty came back.

2. Patterson was astounded at the reaction to it. He thought: they can’t see this? They can’t see that no ape outfit ever done looks or moves anything like this? They’re going to shelve this without comment?

3. He didn’t have the resources, he couldn’t get ‘em, to do another trip like that. And he had to be wondering: why? If they’re not going to buy this, what else could I do? Trap one? (Please don’t tell me he had the $ for that.)

4. So he was reduced to doing what he could to advance the cause of the film and the animal. Which didn’t include ONE attempt to fake ANYTHING.

It’s simply wrong to say Occam points to a fake, because no it doesn’t. There’s been not a shred of evidence that he did; everything that is known says, he didn’t.

C’mon. Workout, please.

Once again: you don’t get to hold one side to evidence while you toss anything to see what sticks. If a Pattyfake required P and G to be shapeshifting aliens, would you go for that?

You’re not far off it. Patterson DIDN’T do this, because he didn’t have the talent or the resources; and the only guy commonly thought to have combined both (Chambers) insisted firmly that he didn’t, and why should we not believe that?
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am
OK, I’ve gotta keep going, because there’s too much here.

Here’s a guy (savvy, please. Genius is more like it. What about this guy says genius to you?) who just made the best ape suit ever, one that mainstream scientists have dropped off the mainstream to advocate as genuine. This fakery is supposed to be so easy to do that he should have had no compunction about trying it again, longer shots, closer to civilization, screw the camera, who needs that? running “Patty” past hundreds, thousands, of hikers and riders and miners and loggers. HE NEVER USES IT, AGAIN. Forget faking tracks. Skeptics who think it was faked talk about being transfixed with wonder by this film (sound familiar ?) Only one facet of this film could induce that: the suit. The camera actually gets in the way! HE NEVER USES THIS SUIT? AGAIN? Logic dictates he has the only guy on Planet Earth who could fit this suit (if he had the resources to find such a freak, he had the resources to keep him) running all over the place, to build a groundswell of popular support for the film. (”I saw that thing! IT’S REAL…”)

Yes, logic does.

Something I keep coming back to is the apparent (it is NOT skeptical) illogic of “skeptics” on this. I’m sure I will see all sorts of cloudnine speculation as to stuff this guy MIGHT have done. But one thing ya need to get your wrapper around: logic says what Patterson would have done if he faked this.

And another: the facts point clearly to: he didn’t.

I could say more. But a logical Pattyfake needs to be put forward. The case for that has been made, cubed, square the result. Because so far, the case for Pattyfake* is laughable. It’s only GIT that keeps credulous people, ignorant of relevant disciplines, from seeing that.

The sas is plausible, without the silliness (given the evidence so far) that has been postulated as, and must be, the only alternative.

Logic says so. Occam would be wristin’ you with a ruler now.

There is only one logical response to this: You’re right. It ain’t too damn likely, and if real Patty is the only alternative, then maybe the matter needs some looking into. Maybe we need to go to some people who think hoax about this film and hold their feet to the fire a bit. Just for starters. How much moolah and time would that huge speculative gamble cost? Please. (Loren: moonlight gig! :-D)

Anything else?

Well now I AM ready for another thread. I like discussing plausible scenarios.

*I should start getting copyrights for all my contributions to cryptozoological nomenclature.
mystery_man responds: July 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
DWA- I suppose you are right about the passion. It’s interesting because back in my days as an avid scoftic and debunker, I was much more fire and brimstone than I am now. I have tempered my approach considerably since then but make no mistake that I still have an incredible amount of interest and passion for this topic as well. I just came to the realization that laying into people would only alienate myself and make people less inclined to listen to what I have to say. I think I make reasonably good contributions here even while perhaps being maybe a little TOO nice. I just want to keep things cicil and let everyone have a chance to speak their mind. Even so, although you know that I am pretty level headed most of the time, you will see me snap at times, it is hard for anyone really any field not to. Show me any scientist out there, or any person for that matter who does not ignite with at least a little passion for a field in which they have genuine interest, and I will show you some magic beans. We are only human. However, I am just really trying to do my best to remain focused and unbiased, so I hope I am not coming off as “too nice”.
rbhess responds: July 21st, 2007 at 11:39 am
DWA & Lyndon:

PUH-LEEZE. Being illogical in the defense of a passionate belief is one thing, but accusing me of illogic because I don’t buy Lyndon’s unbelievably specious reasoning is beyond laughable.

If you’re telling me that Patterson’s failure to perpetrate any further hoaxes is “proof” or evidence that he didn’t hoax the film, then meet me in Brooklyn on Monday, because I’ve got this fantastic bridge to sell you.

FIRST OF ALL, no one says that Patterson wasn’t a passionate believer in Bigfoot himself. He may have been–certainly people who knew him believed that he was sincere about his interest in the subject. It wasn’t just a gimmick for him to make money. He may very well have faked the film in order to garner interest in Bigfoot, in the hopes that science would finally sit up and take notice, and so forth. There’s nothing illogical or unlikely about this, it’s been done before. Furthermore there’s not the slightest thing illogical about the idea of Patterson stopping at that one hoax. In fact it makes perfect sense. 4 or 5 years may sound like a lot of time, but when you’re dying it isn’t, and it undoubtedly took a lot of time and effort for him to do the film. ANOTHER film would have been ridiculously suspect. Though as I said, we’ll never know if later in life he might have tried to do it again.

As for faking some prints—if he faked prints at the sight of the film it was done in order to provide evidence in support of the film. Patterson wasn’t dumb—as a believer in Bigfoot, he would have known that faking even further footprints might have endangered his cause. Besides—WHY BOTHER? He’d just created (assuming he did so) one of the best hoaxes in history. He certainly knew that his film HAD sparked some of the interest he’d probably hoped it would spark–and he’d made some money off of it, to boot. The FILM was enough, in terms of bringing the eyes of the world in on Bigfoot, even if it didn’t make the scientists come a-flocking. And as for money, why jeopardize the cash cow? It would have been stupid to create a great, huge hoax only to risk it by following it up with tiny hoaxes.

But here’s something else—let’s say I give Patterson too much credit for brains—let’s say he DID fake some more footprints. HOW DO WE KNOW HE DIDN’T? He needn’t have planned on being the “discoverer” of any footprints—he may well have faked some and waited for OTHERS to find them. And they may have done so. We don’t KNOW that this didn’t happen. Remember that footprints have been found all over the damn place in the Pacific Northwest. If there IS no Bigfoot, then some hoaxers have been planting these things in all kinds of places in hopes they’d be found. Some just for fun, maybe some (maybe Patterson was amongst these) hoping to keep the interest in Bigfoot alive–because they believe he exists.

One other thing too. Remember that Patterson’s film made a kind of celebrity of him. It would have been even more of a risk, then, for him to go around faking footprints for the next 4 years. It’s not like his every move was being watched, but he damn well would have had the eyes of some locals on him, at least, and it’s not easy to get away with a lesser trick when you’ve just pulled a big one. 4 years wasn’t enough time for things to die down, before Patterson himself died.

Now I’m not saying that Patterson DID do any of this, but my point is, the idea that ‘no further hoaxes from Patterson proves he didn’t do the original hoax’ is just silly in the extreme.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 11:43 am
OK, this is GIT in action.

Um, where did we say anything but: logic says Patterson didn’t do this?

Doesn’t prove anything. Patterson may have been one illogical genius. (Case in point: Howard Hughes.) But it might point to a reason there has been, in 40 years, one shred of solid evidence that he faked it. Not one. Covering tracks like that is, says here, genius beyond all involved..

But thanks for playing. NEXT THREAD.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Oh, God, rbhess, you make this too fun. Shame on me.

“If you’re telling me that Patterson’s failure to perpetrate any further hoaxes is “proof” or evidence that he didn’t hoax the film, …”

And we said that, where? We just noted that it’s one heckuva anomaly, ’cause then we thought we might see some evidence coming from you (for a change). Um, dry hole there, wot?

“ANOTHER film would have been ridiculously suspect.”

No. As any so-called skep can tell you: the ridiculously suspect (to them, of course) thing is that it never has happened again. Can NOT so-called skepticism be a funny thing. Occam, dude. Read again: got the suit. Wooled tonsa people. PLAY IT AGAIN, Sam! Get thousands of people to say, yep, that’s him! Who needs a camera? Let people see the wondrous suit that even has you going, wow!

And don’t tell me that the fuzzy film was essential to the hoax, the “fuzzy” film that has been analyzed, still by still, for forty years and has hard core scientists either convinced or wondering. Won’t wash. If anything, people seeing this one in person would be better. And WAY more believable than film clip after film clip. Sorry, logic at work here.

“Patterson wasn’t dumb—as a believer in Bigfoot, he would have known that faking even further footprints might have endangered his cause.”

Um, right. the Greatest Hoaxer in History thinks he can’t even do a footprint. His footprints at the Patty site are still, to hear you, leading credulous scientists down the garden path. Occam sez: he fakes THOUSANDS after this, RIGHT where people will find them. Do you, or do you NOT, understand how publicity works? Or how every other known hoaxer operated? Hoaxers WANT to be noticed. They do it to get attention.

OK. NEXT THREAD, really now. C’mon. Like P/G, the Lyndon Theorem just looks better and better with the passage of hours.
rbhess responds: July 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
DWA:

Another thing. Don’t start the whole argument with me again about what the proper application of Occam is here. You’re wrong and I just can’t help if you don’t get it and won’t listen. I answered your points way back and you never responded to them, you simply said you’d had enough with the thread. Now you’re back REPEATING yourself without answering my points in the slightest.

Well I’m NOT going to repeat MYself. I’ve told you flat out why the simpler explanation is that the film was faked and that it’s up to SUPPORTERS of the film to prove that it wasn’t—not up to skeptics to prove that it was. You want to ignore this incredibly simple truism, that’s up to you, but then I thank god someone like you isn’t teaching science in any of our schools. You’re just too damn dogmatic about this, to the point where you neither listen, nor present evidence, nor answer points when someone gives them to you.

I am NOT “holding to one side of evidence, seeing what sticks to it” (whatever that even MEANS). *I* have no belief one way or the other about Patterson’s film! I simply acknowledge common sense about the thing, that EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EVIDENCE. YOU think the idea of a SUIT is extraordinary, which is patently absurd!

Now, as to Giganto–againk, there are no definite conclusions to be made about the animal’s status as biped or quadruped. There simply isn’t enough evidence — only jawbones and skull fragments. Given what we know of primate history, it’s most probably that Giganto was a quadruped, a knuckle-walker. And my point was, why would such a creature evolve bipedalism? If Bigfoot is real, it’s more likely he’s some kind of hominid.

Also, there is no reason to state that Grover Krantz was the foremost authority on Giganto–my understanding is that there are paleontologists who’ve done at least as much as Krantz ever did, if not more. But as I said I can’t speak as an authority on this, so I leave it there. But I do know that appealing to Krantz as THE top authority is incorrect.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Oh, m_m.

Nope, you’re not “too nice.” You are probably the best I’ve seen on an internet forum in patiently pointing stuff out to people. You are probably not as nice as most cryptos; might be your pedigree.
Me? I am DEFINITELY not nice.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Can’t help it; I’m addicted to smashing grapefruit.

“Another thing. Don’t start the whole argument with me again about what the proper application of Occam is here. You’re wrong and I just can’t help if you don’t get it and won’t listen.”

Isn’t that ruler starting to hurt now, man? The SIMPLEST explanation! If you think THAT suit is simple to be faked, then you have to think if you’re logical that Patterson is running it all over the woods! “Padding” and “arm extensions like Edward Scissorhands” and “waterbags” and “unique headpiece” and “shoody, cheap, wonder-inducing suit,” there, simple! are like me saying the ostrich is a hoax run by Big Bird! Hey, um. Have you ever watched the film? Sometimes a dude just has to check!

You can’t just heap supposition on supposition. Not in a scientific argument you can’t. You have to show how all those suppositions add up to a suit that: got there; fooled qualified experts; and is still fooling them, forty years later. Oh, and the guy has to be able to walk around in a suit with all your suppositions inside it, too. The freak has to be one of history’s best stunt men, and actors, too; because more than anyone I have seen, HE BECAME THE CHARACTER.

“I’ve told you flat out why the simpler explanation is that the film was faked …”

No you haven’t. Not word one. ‘Cause HOW is a natural extension of “simple” or “not simple.” Simple. See? Now what you’ve been shown, many times, is that the animal is plausible, and “how” is, well, simple. Or do you want to argue with Krantz, Meldrum, Schaller and Bindernagel? Can I watch? Just for help, I can put Napier on your side. He actually thought the animal’s real; he just didn’t buy Patterson. And his argument against Patty is easier to rend asunder than cheap toilet tissue.

“You want to ignore this incredibly simple truism, that’s up to you, but then I thank god someone like you isn’t teaching science in any of our schools.”

Um, YOU’RE not, right? You do drop this line of reasoning for teaching purposes, right? “Remember, kids, ANY hoax explanation holds water, cause this animal AIN’T plausible. Three letters: G-I-T.” Are kids really learning from you that your side of a scientific argument requires no evidence if you just, um, disbelieve the other side?

BTW: in BushAmerika, you better not be caught dead not capitalizing “God” in front of impressionable future soldi…um, students.
“Now, as to Giganto–againk, there are no definite conclusions to be made about the animal’s status as biped or quadruped.”

I think I agreed there. There is a strong case to be made, both ways.

“I simply acknowledge common sense about the thing, that EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EVIDENCE. YOU think the idea of a SUIT is extraordinary, which is patently absurd!”

Been there, above. Everything anyone has said about THIS suit - the one you can see - being a fake is, in a word…oh, your last word has it! Absurd! Thanks. That is a claim, on its face, more extraordinary than the animal. Which is a possible window into why, after 40 years, the evidence score is: sasquatch: murder-rule-far-exceeded and still climbing; hoax: they haven’t batted yet.

Can we move ON here? Or is this detention detail? Saaaaay, you ARE a science teacher! Teach, can I have another grapefruit?
Lyndon responds: July 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“”"”Now I’m not saying that Patterson DID do any of this, but my point is, the idea that ‘no further hoaxes from Patterson proves he didn’t do the original hoax’ is just silly in the extreme.”"”"”

No, it doesn’t ‘prove’ he didn’t do it, but it sure as hell points to it. It is more than enough evidence.

If Patterson hoaxed the film there is simply no way on this earth he could have resisted the urge to ‘come across’ anything else. He played a blinder in ‘67 and pulled if off supremely. He still went out to investigate reports and sightings after ‘67. It’s beyond credulity that he could have resisted the urge totally to plant a few tracks here and there and reported coming across them.

The fact that he never ever did that would tend to support him being innocent of perpetrating a hoax at Bluff Creek.
Lyndon responds: July 21st, 2007 at 4:01 pm
“”PUH-LEEZE. Being illogical in the defense of a passionate belief is one thing, but accusing me of illogic because I don’t buy Lyndon’s unbelievably specious reasoning is beyond laughable.”"

What is “specious” about my reasoning rbhess? It’s perfectly logical and it makes a great slam dunk rebutal the the ‘hoaxer’ argument. You have yet to explain why it is specious. You have tried to excuse it but you haven’t explained it away. I think you have lot to learn about human behaviour. Either that or you are using your obvious skepticism of sasquatch to cloud your judgement.

Patterson did not display ANY of the traits consistent with a hoaxer and conman and certainly not during the rest of his 5 years of live after the footage was taken. There is just no way around this irrefutable fact.
Daniel Loxton responds: July 21st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Lyndon writes:

If Patterson hoaxed the film there is simply no way on this earth he could have resisted the urge to ‘come across’ anything else.

I’m afraid this is overstating this position. Of course Patterson could have refrained from further hoaxes, just as he could have refrained from eating eggplant or or visiting France. People choose to not do things all the time. Sometimes what they don’t do is surprising to us.

Drawing conclusions based on what we suppose someone else would have done is an easy path to error.

(This is an error we skeptics also make, by the way. In an off-topic example, skeptics often suppose that aliens would not cross the yawning interstellar void simply in order to perform the same crude rectal exam over and over again. But we don’t know that — at the end of the day, that’s a guess.)

In cryptozoology, some hoaxers do tip their hands with ongoing pranks (we can all think of several). Others don’t. It’s a matter of record that many cryptozoological hoaxers in fact have restrained themselves to one-offs: Lachlan Stuart at Loch Ness, for example, or the perpetrators of the Mission bus driver hoax.

Supposing that Patterson “would not have stopped there” is nothing more or less than an outright guess. We’d be as well off to flip a coin.
DWA responds: July 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Careful, Lyndon, don’t want to give ‘em a rag end to hang on here.

There’s a lot known about Patterson that says he was not the straightest of arrows. Crook sounds kind of strong to me, but no goody two-shoes. So “not displaying any of the traits….” is, well, in some areas of his life he did display some, and skeptics have held those against him. What does stand out though is how straight he was about this.

And no, it isn’t proof of anything, nor did we say it was. What we keep coming back to is the skeptical suppostions about the supposed hoaxers which are virtually all in opposition to anything known about them. How skeptics continue to say that his not-quite-Pollyanna life is a strike against the film’s authenticity, and yet don’t seem to understand that it’s utterly illogical to presume history’s greatest hoax was the only one he had in him is, well, it’s a mistake of the first water, and it’s of the kind that so-called skeptics - again, it’s not skeptical, it’s credulous and naive - continually make.

If you want to talk about models, there’s a model here. It says that the “hoaxers” lacked the talent, resources and motivation to do this. The model also says that that suit is some kinda infrastructure, and to presume it never got used again because Patterson didn’t want to goes against the model of how con men behave. Con men run cons, as long as they can. History - the facts - strongly suggests that when it came to Bigfoot, Roger Patterson was totally serious. If he had hoaxed this, he would have devoted the time he had left to more hoaxes.

And he didn’t.

Proof of nothing. But a strong indicator of a way to bet, and as I’ve said repeatedly, a possible window into why no one seems able to come up with any hoax evidence.
jerrywayne responds: July 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Thompson Report

DWA- Thanks for the added information. I always enjoy reading Meldrum, even if I take him with a large grain of salt. It seems we have two competing notions of the Thompson story:
a. Thompson found some ambiguous tracks (actually, Bigfoot prints) and mistook them for bear tracks.
b. Thompson writes ambiguously about bear tracks and is mistaken by Bigfoot advocates centuries later as reporting Bigfoot tracks.

It should be noted that Thompson never refers to the tracks either as bipedal or human shaped (i.e., Bigfoot). And he does refer to the tacks as bear tracks (albeit, he was creeped out by the track’s size).
Try this thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend Bigfoot does not exist and never existed. Now, what do you make of Thompson’s entry? Is it absolutely inexplicable? Or, is it what it appears to be: a story relating finding large bear tracks in a desolate area?

Bigfoot v. Skunk Apes v. Aliens

Lyndon: I certainly agree with you that the Pacific northwest Bigfoot accounts are more plausible than having giant apes running around the entire continental United States (although, I must confess, I’m much more skeptical of the Pacific northwest Bigfoot than I used to be, and much more than you are now).

I think the development of the continental Bigfoot degrades the entire Bigfoot enterprise. If you have reports, and prints, of Bigfoot from Texas, for instance, then it is time to look to other explanations instead of the literalistic, flesh and blood monster explanation. And if we can look at other explanations for the Texas Bigfoot phenomena, well, sad to say, we can also look at those same explanations as they relate to Bigfoot stories in the northwest.

The development of the continental Bigfoot has a parallel in the alien phenomenon. Fifty years ago there were no large head, big eyed “Greys” on the landscape of UFOlogy. Adamski’s alien was a Swedish looking guy. Eventually, after a highly publicized “abduction” case and subsequent film, more and more people began “sighting” just such aliens and having their own “abductions.” Similarly, Bigfoot was primarily relegated to the northwest (except for stories elsewhere of “skunk-apes” or “goatmen” or other local “monster” stories). Then, with the advent of cable (and its mystery mongering programming dealing with everything from UFO’s and King Tut curses to Bigfoot and ghosts) and later the internet, the range of Bigfoot began to expand throughout the land, to where now, DWA informs us, thousands of “sightings” of Bigfoot are occurring everywhere. I think this casts doubt on the whole Bigfoot story.

Patterson and His Bigfoot

Lyndon: I do not see where Patterson is exonerated from hoax charges because he never again filmed Bigfoot.
a. If he hoaxed the film (and I think he did), then at least two other people were in on the hoax. He could not have made another film without his confederates and it is surely feasible
that as a group they decided to stop while they were ahead.
b. Patterson, as I understand it, never went back to Bluff Creek to look for Bigfoot. If he had such incredible luck in finding and filming Bigfoot after only a couple of weeks out, you would think he would have spent a great deal more time there in search of his prey. Unless, of course, he knew what he had on film was not a sasquatch.
Lyndon responds: July 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
jerrywayne,

Not only did Patterson never hoax another film of bigfoot but he never even hoaxed even so much as one track. He still went out investigating reports. It would have been too tempting to fool his fellow bigfooters by ‘happening upon’ a track or two, yet he didn’t even do this. This is clear evidence he wasn’t a hoaxer or much of a yarn spinner making things up.

With regards to not going back to Bluff Creek, he only went there in the first place because of recent activity as told to him by John Green. Previously he was searching in his home state of Washington. After he got his footage he really thought that would be enough. He thought it would be of major importance. He hit the road with it. Why go back to Bluff Creek? He’d already got the footage. More importantly, winter was coming and the weather was changing and was becoming more unpredictable.

Patterson was an avowed believer in bigfoot who obviously was convinced Bluff Creek wasn’t their only habitat. Patterson’s method was to follow up recent activity and then head to those locations. Nothing significant was reported in Bluff Creek after ‘67. Perhaps the human activity moved the animals off somewhere else? That being the case, and with no activity in Bluff Creek reported when Patterson was off touring with his film why go all that way again? Patterson instead looked into other areas closer to home where recent activity was reported….such as Bossburg.
rbhess responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
DWA:

“Um, where did we say anything but: logic says Patterson didn’t do this?”

Then what ARE YOU SAYING, DWA?

You seem to be more interested in playing games and listening to yourself talk, as well as enjoying your own “wit”, (such as it is, which isn’t much) than making any lucid points, or stating clearly what your stance is.

Basically, you’ve repeatedly stumped for the idea that it’s so unlikely that Patterson built a suit or had one made as to be nigh on impossible, but when challenged on this, you attack the challenger while at the same time backing off your statements to pretend that you’re just a skeptic… and a “true skeptic” to boot, as though those of us who feel differently from you must be biased fools who don’t know what they’re talking about. (When in fact you’ve admitted that you yourself are not a scientist—yet you have the gall to lecture others on proper scientific method!) Go tell any group of biologists, paleontologists and/or primatologists (let alone SFX experts) your idea that “Patty” is overwhelmingly MORE likely to be a real animal than a guy in a suit. You’d get laughed out of the room, and deservedly so.

Yes, this thread HAS ended as far as I’m concerned, because I have no more time to waste debating back and forth with someone who practices what amounts to intellectual dishonesty, and has the temerity to be smug and cute about it.

As for you, Lyndon—I repeat to you—you continue to say that Patterson DIDN’T fake any footprints after the film (if he DID fake those) but you have no evidence for making such a definitive statement and in fact WE DON’T KNOW if he faked any after the film (or before). There may be casts of footprints out there right now, in the hands of researchers, that were faked by Patterson. WE DON’T KNOW. Your “theory”, then, is valueless. But it’s valueless anyway, because a one-time hoaxer is every bit as likely as a repeat hoaxer.

*I* have a lot to learn about human behavior, eh? I think you have a lot of research to do about hoaxers. Yes, many of them are “repeaters,” but by no means all. Not the serious, major ones, in fact. In fact the more flippant a hoaxer, the more likely he is to repeat his deed. But Patterson almost certainly was not flippant about what he was doing (if he did hoax the film). Everything we know about him points to being a devout believer in Bigfoot himself, and if YOU think about human nature yourself, you’d realize that his motivation for faking the film (besides a shot at making some money) would have been to “popularize” Bigfoot and bring greater interest–particularly scientific interest–to study the thing and hopefully FIND it. This does not indicate that Patterson was a “con man” or trickster out to just have a laugh and fool people. He probably had a more serious agenda. And it’s JUST AS LIKELY AS NOT that, wishing to not jeopardize that agenda, he refrained from further hoaxes.

But even beyond that, the man DIED just FOUR years after his film made it big, and one would assume that impending death was at least taking up some of his time and energy. Had he NOT died, we don’t know—we might have been treated to further Patterson hoaxes. Yes, your idea MIGHT carry a little weight (though I personally don’t think so, because as I said earlier–it’s just as likely that a hoaxer would stop after ONE big hoax) if Patterson had lived another forty years and never perpetrated a hoax in that time—but four years is too little to go on to make such a judgement. Again, we don’t know—he MAY have faked more foot prints in that time that weren’t found out, or traced to him—or he may have been waiting for the hubbub surrounding the film to die down—or he may have been a believer who accomplished the task he set out to accomplish. All this is possible, and not unlikely.

THAT is why your reasoning is specious. You make too many assumptions, and are far too firm about the ones you make.
DWA responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
jerrywayne:

As to Thompson’s find, I wouldn’t say inexplicable; there aren’t many options there. It’s just a very unusual, in fact unique, description of a bear track find, if that it is. I think that’s what has gotten people wondering what it was. We certainly don’t have enough evidence to ever know for sure. If anyone’s said he found Bigfoot tracks, that may be going overboard, based on the description alone. But there is plenty of room to wonder what it was he did find, especially when he was very familiar with bears and used terms that normally don’t refer to a bear’s tracks. Your thought experiment is indeed interesting; but I’d still find that description hard to simply accept as a bear and leave at that, unless I could see him as simply mistaken about the features he saw. And that’s a pretty detailed description for me to be certain of that.

As to the continental Bigfoot, that’s what has gotten such as Bindernagel more interested; in fact, he thinks the “regional monster” is something more likely to be a quaint local legend. Remember, this animal first hit the media in the PNW; and it’s an animal that most people believe it’s not wise to say you saw. Reports from other parts of the continent predating the California track finds that spawned the name “Bigfoot” and the Patterson film - many predating them by decades - have come to light since Bigfoot became a national media phenomenon, because now people have a way to relate what they saw long ago to what other people, apparently, are seeing too. Reports of similar animals - in places outside the PNW considered hotspots by researchers now - are in nineteenth-century newspapers. And then there are the many First Nations accounts of similar animals, again not restricted to the PNW. In other words, people were seeing them before the media made Bigfoot big. It’s just that many of them thought they were nuts, or would be seen that way, back then; and now they don’t.

And as to P/G (this is more a general note than a response specifically to what you wrote):

Whatever Patterson’s motivations, they really don’t matter. He could have stolen the camera from a pawn shop; shot two miners that tried to collect debts from him; and taken their horses. Still, there’s P/G. Whether Patterson’s a crook doesn’t really matter at all. The motiviation is insufficient to pull this off. Patterson needed:

1. The talent;
2. The connections;
3. The wherewithal, e.g., money, time, material, and sufficiently talented associates; and
4. Absolute assurance that everyone would keep his mouth shut (which goes down with each recruit you bring in).

That this hasn’t been recreated, or even close, is telling. The motivation is certainly out there, and the technology has grown by leaps and bounds. And not only is there no evidence saying he did it; all evidence known points to his NOT doing it.

Still, there’s P/G, as hotly debated as ever it was.

Gives me pause.

And as to rbhess (speaking of smug): he is just going to have to read until he gets it. In response to his question “Then what ARE YOU SAYING, DWA?”: I answer it in the line he quotes immediately preceding the question: Where did we say anything but: logic says Patterson didn’t do this?
mystery_man responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
And around and around we go.

In another 40 years, I wonder if these same conversations will be happening? I hate to say it, but I am frankly a tad tired of the PG footage and that is why I kind of ducked out of this discussion. It is compelling to me, but I have to say, it is not the conclusive evidence that we all need, and most discussions on it seem to inevitably devolve into salt throwing which to me detracts from the overall quest for some elusive grain of truth. People on both sides get fierce with this topic, yet at the end of the day, the hard truth is this video had not gotten us along any farther than we were 40 years ago. I am fascinated by the footage but I implore believers not to build too much of a case on this footage alone because in the end, no matter how unlikely it may seem to some, it most certainly could be a hoax. However much stock you put in this footage, there is no guarantee that it is the real deal, so in reality I think it is dangerous to put too much scientific weight on it.

I have seen many instances of people speculating on what sasquatch movements might be based on comparisons to this film, as if this is the definitive holotype for any video evidence to be compared to and I feel this is a dangerous habit. Just even the slightest chance that this footage is hoaxed makes any comparisons to it speculative at best, hopeless believerism at worst. This is simply not proven to be real footage of a sasquatch. Any research based on this footage is going to be potentially flawed since we simply don’t know, so until we have definitive footage of a proven sasquatch, I feel it is prudent not to make too many assumptions based on what we see here. I’d have to say to proponents of the film who think it could be real, I see your point of view as I think it could be real too. However, are you willing to risk the integrity of any research based upon footage that stands the possibility of being a hoax? I have higher hopes for serious sasquatch research than taking a possibly fake video at face value, and I would hope that researchers would not take route.

The fact is, without some other supporting evidence, this footage is merely a curiosity as far as the world at large and the scientific community goes, and unfortunately for many it is not even a curiosity, but a joke. I don’t like it, but that’s basically what we have here. What does that tell us? For me, I think it means we need something more to go on here, some more supporting concrete evidence. This video is obviously not going to be accepted as conclusive evidence of anything and I don’t think there is ever going to be any revelation that “proves” this video to be one thing or another.

If you want my most brutally honest opinion, I think even doing what proponents demand and reproducing the hoax will not completely set anything straight for them. If this video cannot be reproduced by our best efforts, it does not prove this wasn’t a hoax or that Patterson didn’t do what we cannot. And if Patty is real, even reproducing it only means a reproduction of a real living creature, which is done in movies all of the time. Consequently, what this video is will remain largely a matter of opinion and will always hold doubts for many. Even to those who have “made a stance” on the film, I do not think there are too many believers out there who in their heart of hearts don’t wonder if it was a hoax and conversely not too many skeptics who don’t wonder at least a little if it could be real. In my opinion, this is not likely to change from what we have to go on here.

Time to find the next big thing.
mystery_man responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Almost 200 posts here. What a thread! I almost want to keep posting just to make it an even 200.
Ceroill responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
mystery-man, I know I say this fairly frequently, but well said.
DWA responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
mystery_man:

“Almost 200 posts here. What a thread! I almost want to keep posting just to make it an even 200.”

Allow me.
Couldn’t agree more, with all you’ve said. I have heard people say that if you duplicate Patty it’s a hoax; if it’s different it’s a hoax; and that there it is, the animal. Everything I have said boils down to this: with no evidence it was faked, and no conclusive evidence it’s real, we are stuck. With something extraordinarily intriguing, yes. But still, stuck.

I have said more than once that the existence or not of P/G would not affect my thoughts about the sasquatch.

It doesn’t, either way.
mystery_man responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Ceroill- Thank you. I like to hear it. Good to know there are some who think I am making some sort of sense. Figure I’d give you a thank you out loud for your kind words, plus, we are almost at 200 posts!
rbhess responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Mystery_man:

I totally agree with everything you said. This film has been thoroughly debunked; Hieronymous has come forward claiming to be the guy in the suit, others have come forward either claiming to be the maker of the suit or to have known who did make it, and yet the film lives on. Even if Gimlin admitted tomorrow that it was all a hoax, I’m sure there’s a core of die-hard believers out there who’d say he was lying in order to get back at Roger Patterson.

I’ve always been fond of the film and even intrigued by it… but as evidence… well, it’s close to worthless, because nothing definitive can be established about it.
Daniel Loxton responds: July 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Mystery_man writes,

…I implore believers not to build too much of a case on this footage alone because in the end, no matter how unlikely it may seem to some, it most certainly could be a hoax. …I think it is dangerous to put too much scientific weight on it.

I think you go right to the heart of the matter.

You’re right: claims that it could not be a hoax are only wishful thinking; claims that such a hoax would be so difficult as to be impossible are hyperbole. The possibility of hoaxing most certainly exists (and my view is that there’s a strong circumstantial case to made that it is in fact a hoax).

I have seen many instances of people speculating on what sasquatch movements might be based on comparisons to this film, as if this is the definitive holotype for any video evidence to be compared to and I feel this is a dangerous habit. Just even the slightest chance that this footage is hoaxed makes any comparisons to it speculative at best, hopeless believerism at worst.

This habit is common, and it’s a disaster. One may suspect that the P/G film is genuine, but there’s no getting away from the possibility that it is a hoax. Using this film as the standard against which other Bigfoot evidence is measured is reckless, unjustifiable gambling. We can’t determine which other cases may or may not describe Bigfoot by comparing them with something else that may or may not be Bigfoot.

It’s fine for this film to be a source of wonder and inspiration for Bigfoot proponents, but without some means to verify or falsify the competing hypotheses regarding its creation, P/G is of almost no value as evidence for the existence or characteristics of Bigfoot. At the end of the day, it’s just another isolated case (badly) contaminated by the possibility of hoaxing. Set it aside.

…are you willing to risk the integrity of any research based upon footage that stands the possibility of being a hoax? I have higher hopes for serious sasquatch research than taking a possibly fake video at face value, and I would hope that researchers would not take route.

I have the same higher hopes.

…I do not think there are too many believers out there who in their heart of hearts don’t wonder if it was a hoax and conversely not too many skeptics who don’t wonder at least a little if it could be real. In my opinion, this is not likely to change from what we have to go on here.

Yes, I can relate to that little “what if” thrill up the spine that Loren describes in his introduction above. The creature in the P/G film is consistent with a guy in a home-made suit, but who knows? A vanishingly small secret hope isn’t quite the same as no hope at all…
mystery_man responds: July 24th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Let me do the honors. 200 posts. I am not sure, but I think this could very well be the longest thread ever to be on this site. This is testament to the enduring mystery of this video and I am grateful that we have so many here that care enough about cryptozoology to talk at length on these things. Great thread, great site, great posts. Long live Cryptomundo!
Lyndon responds: July 25th, 2007 at 4:32 am
rbhess wrote:

THAT is why your reasoning is specious. You make too many assumptions, and are far too firm about the ones you make

Complete nonsense. It is an established fact that Roger Patterson never ever claimed to have found any more bigfoot tracks post the 1967 Bluff Creek filmsite.

Why are you trying to argue this point? Your excuse about “well we don’t know that he didn’t fake any” is completely ridiculous and irrelevant.

We KNOW that he didn’t claim to find any more and THAT is the most telling aspect of his whole post ‘67 behaviour.

You are simply clutching at straws with your whole “he could have done this and he could have done that” carry on. We have NOTHING to point to him doing so so please stop your weak, wishful thinking attempt to argue your way out of a corner.
Lyndon responds: July 25th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Daniel Loxton incorrectly writes:

The creature in the P/G film is consistent with a guy in a home-made suit,

Which specific guy in a home-made suit is it consistent with then Daniel? Can you direct me to this guy in a suit?

Which guy in a suit has ever walked bipedally with such a bulky and cumbersome suit on, complete with huge fake feet, along a dried up river bed and yet at the same time looking perfectly comfortable, at home and at complete ease in said suit???

People who make such incorrect and ignorant statements such as you Daniel obviously have little knowledge about the history of bipedal apeman/bigfoot suits and the actors who have worn such suits.

There has been NO OTHER suit and NO OTHER ACTOR in a bipedal apeman/bigfoot suit that is consistent with that we see in the P/G footage.

There is not even one example to show this. Good luck in trying to dig one up. You won’t be able to.

Cheers!
DWA responds: July 25th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Lyndon’s doing a good job, so I don’t need to back him up.

But there is one and only one reason we are still talking about Patterson: it most certainly does not look like any guy, in any conceivable suit.

That suit instills wonder - even in those who believe it faked - because it’s natural. It doesn’t look that way. It is. The gait is totally unaffected, and easy, under conditions the toughness of which can be unappreciated by people who, I’m sure, haven’t tried it.

Note that I can’t say that this is definitely not a fake (as those who are not reading my arguments are incorrectly concluding). But that is the last thing it looks like; and the skeptics are missing that this is precisely the thing that grabs them about it. To assert with available evidence that Patterson did this is, well, Rembrandt never did anything as good.

Yes. It is that good.

And if Patterson is that good, I require proof, because it is, on its face, as absurd a notion as the one that Hieronymous correctly described the suit he wore, the one you can see, right there.

As I have said, many times: we have two totally absurd notions competing with each other here - an uncatalogued American ape and rubes building the best suit ever. One has just had much more evidence presented for it than the other.

Despite one of the wildest claims I’ve ever read on this site - rbhess and I got off on the wrong foot, and maybe we’ll fix it down the line, but I didn’t really think I’d gotten him that angry - Patterson-Gimlin, in forty years, has never been debunked. It has, however, been thoroughly poisoned. And this poisoning, by an irrational rush to judgment despite no analysis ever supporting that judgment, has me continually coming back to a thought:

Why DO proponents wish this would go away?

Sure, they have tons of evidence without it.

But. When all the evidence we have on this one says, we don’t know, but it seems to be what it looks like, why would we turn away?

Well, maybe - after forty years - we haven’t. (Over 200 posts.) And maybe someday before we all die, truly open eyes will look at this film again, and do with it what should have been done in the first place:

Follow the evidence, all of it, up to see where it leads.
Daniel Loxton responds: July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Lyndon writes,

Which specific guy in a home-made suit is it consistent with then Daniel? Can you direct me to this guy in a suit?

This request really sidesteps the concept of “home-made.” If it is an improvised one-off, as I think it is, then we could no more find an exact match for it than we could find two people making the exact same home-made pasta sauce.

In general terms it’s entirely consistent with a guy in a home-made suit. It’s (only somewhat) persuasive to viewers from the general population, as was the home-made Mission bus driver suit; it’s persuasive to Bigfoot researchers, as the home-made Marx suit initially was. And, the Patterson creature looks like a guy in a suit. Yes, it presumably also looks something like a real sasquatch, but to most viewers it is intuitively obvious that it could be a suit.

My point is not whether it could in principle be a suit — virtually all commentators agree that it could, including the prominent Bigfoot researchers. But many proponents argue that it might have been prohibitively expensive or difficult to create a suit matching the creature in the Patterson film.

I disagree. Assuming it’s a suit, I see nothing to indicate any special level of sophistication about it. For all we’ve heard about rippling muscles and so on, I must say that’s just not what I see when I look at the film. In my opinion, it looks and behaves like a shaggy suit with some padding — the kind of crude background costume that couldn’t survive a close-up.
Lyndon responds: July 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Daniel,

You are way off beam. The P/G subject isn’t ’shaggy’. The hair is actually short compared to the ‘typical’ bigfoot costume and it’s body contours are plain to see, again which is unlike other bigfoot costumes. The head is not over large compared to the shoulder width, which is another pointer of a typical bigfoot costume. Every bigfoot costume I have ever seen has a head out of proportion to the rest of the body. The P/G footage doesn’t.

The P/G subject moves fluidly, comfortably and without even so much as a look down towards it’s pathway as it’s walking. This would be impossible, at least it has proved impossible so far, for anybody in a cumbersome, bulky bigfoot suit wearing fake feet and walking across an uneven dried up river bead to achieve.

I have seen dozens and dozens of ‘men in bigfoot suits’, whether as a Hollywood costume, commercial, hoax, t.v programme or documentary and NONE of them are consistent with what we see in the P/G footage. I’m a big fan of cheesy old bigfoot movies from the 1970s and 1980s.

You can go from Boggy Creek to The Six Million Dollar Man, to Snowbeast to Harry and The Hendersons to the X-Creatures and dozens more in between. What they all have in consistency that they do NOT share with the P/G footage is a lack of definition, lack of bulk, too much hair hiding body contours and more importantly the actors in those bigfoot suits do not appear to be comfortable or at ease stomping around in said suits. Many of these men in suits have been shown in more obscure shots and at greater distances than the P/G subject yet it is still easy to establish what they are….men in suits.

I implore to to watch as many movies and documentaries as you can that show men in bigfoot suits. You will not find any that come anywhere near showing similarities to the subject in the P/G footage. Claims otherwise are just that. Claims. There are no examples to cite.
Lyndon responds: July 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
DWA wrote;

The gait is totally unaffected, and easy, under conditions the toughness of which can be unappreciated by people who, I’m sure, haven’t tried it.

Precisely. This is the point that the suitnicks entirely gloss over, or ignore. The gait is unaffected by the ‘bulky, cumbersome suit’. The gait is unaffected by the ‘huge fake feet’. The gait is unaffected by the uneven dried up river bed the subject is walking along, and not even looking down at.

It’s not just the ‘look’ of the suit, it’s how the subject moves and carries itself. It’s how at ease and totally comfortable it’s movements are. It looks natural, which of course can not be the case if what we see is just padding and huge fake. How can excessively wide padded shoulders and extra long fake arms swing like that and not look false?
mystery_man responds: July 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Lyndon- Well, I am not sure that the ease of the gait is something that “suitniks” ignore exactly. It seems to me that the ease of movement is actually one of the reasons why some skeptics are wary of completely dismissing this film and why the film is still discussed 40 years on. I think the confident gait displayed by the subject of the film rather than being something that is glossed over or ignored, is something that instills that “what if?” feeling in some suit proponents and is a main reason why many are willing to entertain the thought that there is at least a possibility this could be a real creature.
jerrywayne responds: July 26th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I appreciate the eloquently modest views expressed by Daniel Loxton and Mystery Man above.

I have a couple of questions to address to those that stand pat with the Patterson film.

What If It IS Fake?

For the sake of argument: What if the film is conclusively found to be a hoax? (For instance: Gimlin confesses it is a hoax; Patty Patterson brings the “ape suit” down from the attic and presents it to the press; a spot on recreation is made by skeptics; etc.) What, then, would be your heart felt and intellectual reaction?

Would you be depressed and disappointed? Would you be angry at Patterson? Would you be dismayed and ticked off at advocates such as Sanderson and Green and Meldrum and others who have endorsed the Patterson film? Or would you find it all so funny? Would you kick yourself for being fooled? Laugh at yourself? Salute Patterson for his well made deception? What?

Or, to flip it around:

What Is IT?

For the sake of argument: Let’s pretend the Patterson film is real and not a hoax. What we see is really what Patterson saw and filmed. Now, what did he film. The easy answer is; Bigfoot. But, let’s get beyond preconceptions and answer the question: “what is it?” If you want to say “the Great American Ape”, well, look again. Except for the body hair and certain aspects of the head, there is really nothing about the creature to suggest an ape. It has long legs and is bipedal.
It has pronounced buttocks that are lacking in most, if not all, ape species. It has a flat stomach, not characteristic of any of the Great Apes. It has large female breasts, characteristic of humans, not apes.

Remember, the sasquatch, according to the Indian stories I’ve heard, is human. Are we looking at a feral human, a human “throwback”, a modern “caveman”, or what? Just what in the world are we looking at when we see Patterson’s film, if it is not a modern human in a costume?
DWA responds: July 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
jerrywayne:

If it’s fake, Patterson - or whoever - is one of the greatest artists of all time. I’d consider a national holiday. You think I’m kidding? This would be one of the most fascinating sagas in American history; I’d consider getting in a long line to buy that book. The reason I think it’s so unlikely that HE did it is the list of people who endorse it. And that no one’s come close to beginning to debunk it. Whoever did this is way beyond good. And it says here: talented way beyond Patterson. It’s just that to presume that Patterson could either enlist such a guy, or get hoaxed by one, piles logistical improbability on improbability.

All of your concerns about what it is have been responded to, numerous times, and well, by the same folks you list, and others besides. It’s generally accepted now that we humans belong, in evolutionary terms, with the apes. (As the book says: The Third Chimpanzee.) Looked at that way, Patty isn’t some outlandish ape, she’s more of a median ape. She gets more that way when one looks at such as Paranthropus robustus and its australopithecine kin, human ancestors that, if you saw one now, you’d say: upright ape. And again, the book is not closed on whether Gigantopithecus was bipedal, or not.

As to the Indians: having no cultural experience with any other apes, they used as their comparison point the animal that the sas reminded them of most; the ape they were.

In short, everything about Patty strongly suggests an ape. That’s why, every time anyone says what bigfoot is, the word “ape” shows up somewhere in there. John Bindernagel’s a wildlife biologist; he’s pointed out that numerous sas encounter reports get very plausible sounding when compared with known behaviors of the extant great apes. He titles his book “North America’s Great Ape: the Sasquatch.” Argue it with him, not me.
Lyndon responds: July 27th, 2007 at 3:38 am
jerrywayne,

If the P/G footage was ever proven a fake I would be staggered. Like DWA, I would be confused and amazed at why every other bigfoot suit made in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s didn’t employ the brilliant techniques Patterson applied.

As to what is it if real, well all other apes are not soley bipedal so that’s why they don’t have long legs. They don’t need them. A totally bipedal ape would natutrally have longer legs. It’s functional.

The pronounced buttocks, again, are a result of a bipedal and erect posture. The reason why humans have them and apes do not is because we are bipedal and erect, whereas apes are not. I see no reason why any upright erect bipedal ape would not have pronounced buttocks like humans do.

The flat belly would go with it’s (alleged) omniverous, opportunistic diet. Some human’s have pot bellies like apes. Certain African tribes people have large pot bellies mainly because of their intake of certain crops and beer. Most apes have pot bellies because of their vegetation intake. I cannot see sasquatch being a soley vegetarian like most apes. Many chimps don’t have excessive pot bellies and they have a more varied diet.

As for the breasts, well they do look kind of full but I can’t quite make out exactly what shape they are so I can’t comments firther on that.

DWA has brought up other points on the evolution of human ancestors.
Daniel Loxton responds: July 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
If the Patterson film was definitely revealed to be a fake, I’d have very mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m a journalist for the skeptical press, so that would be an exciting breaking story. Then, everyone likes to have their best analysis confirmed, so I’m sure I’d feel a little satisfaction.

But I’d also be sad (and perhaps feel a bit silly about that).

On the other hand, if it was confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt to be genuine, I’d throw a big old party.
jerrywayne responds: July 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Magic Act

I used to accept the Patterson film as legitimate. For years I would occasionally run across the film on TV or in my readings and I would marvel at it with a believer’s heart and a believer’s eyes. Alas, over time I grew more skeptical and began to see flaws in the creature represented and wondered about why the issue had not been laid to rest definitively, in the advocate’s favor, long ago.

I read Long’s book and it laid the film to rest for me. I was a bit whimsical after concluding, to my own satisfaction, Patterson had “punked” us all. Curiously, I felt as if I had lost a friend in Patterson’s Bigfoot; after all, she had been in my thoughts and dreams for decades. I wasn’t angry with Patterson, but the book presented an elementary investigation which impeached his veracity without doubt, and I did feel disappointed that the earlier investigators, Sanderson and Green, did not do what needed to be done back then to give us a credible account.

While some folks want to conclude that Patterson must have been part Edison and part Orson Welles to have pulled off such a hoax, I think the truth is much more modest, as truth often is. Patterson’s Bigfoot is like any magic act; folks have a tendency to try to over-explain what they see in a magic act. Almost always, they think the magic act is more complicated than it really is. They overlook the easy explanation and go instead to the complex explanation. Patterson’s Bigfoot was probably a guy in a home made costume, filmed at a distance, with capricious and advantageous lighting; a strolling man on a river bed, dressed in horse hair and a prefabricated gorilla suit, unique to place, time, and circumstance, and made more wondrous than it really is by hearts that want to believe and eyes that want to see.
jerrywayne responds: July 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
It Is Real, But What Is IT?

I have given some reasons in posts above why I do not think Patterson’s film is of a real Bigfoot.
Yet, like other skeptics, I will not rule it out absolutely. For the sake of argument, I have posed the question: if it is real, what is it?

I was attempting to look at Patterson’s Bigfoot with fresh eyes, to find something new to say about the image. I was trying to reconsider the image.

DWA- I appreciate your comments. I do have a problem with not distinguishing between apes and humans. I do think some evolutionists talk of such things as “the naked ape” when referring to humans, but I always took that as hyperbole aimed at those who do not accept that we are part of the animal kingdom and believe instead we are set apart from animals (the creationists).

You suggest everything about “Patty” is apelike. I beg to differ. If you found tracks like those made by Patterson’s Bigfoot (remember, I’m granting you the reality of “Patty” for sake of argument), but you had never heard of Bigfoot as popularly conceived, you would not look at the tracks and think, “my, what large ape tracks out here in the woods.” Instead, you would probably think, “good gravy, that is one big hombre.”

You suggest that several scientists have answered my concerns. But this seems to me to be an appeal to authority that is at odds with your often stated distrust of scientists. Be that as it may, one of the early advocates, Joseph Wraight, suggested Bigfoot was not implausible because “these creatures are more humanlike than apelike and they apparently migrated here” rather than evolve here.

Even those who try to link Bigfoot (or other Bigfoot like creatures) to Gigantopithecus admit in their own advocacy that such a link is “utterly hypothetical” (Heuvelmans on Gigantopithecus and the Yeti). I suggest that Bigfoot (and Patterson’s especially) is hard to explain and its professional advocates, such as Krantz and Meldrum, have leapt to the only explanation that they could possibly rationalize as relevant to Bigfoot accounts (Gigantopithecus as Bigfoot). And even if such an explanation is only an “utterly hypothetical” contemplation.

You suggest the Indian accounts of sasquatch are both real (not mere legend) and mistaken (the Indians believed the apes among them were human). You explain this by evoking the notion that they did not know of apes and pigeon-holed sasquatch as humans. I suggest that perhaps the professional advocates have perhaps pigeon-holed Bigfoot as an evolved ape because they have no clue otherwise as to how to explain the existence of such creatures.

By the way. If you reread the early accounts of Indians concerning sasquatch, you may be surprised to find that not only did they portray sasquatch as a race or tribe of giant Indians, but they also had encounters with sasquatch where the “apes” used human language.

Lyndon- Thanks for your comments. It seems that you are unwittingly making a case for Bigfoot as human rather than ape. You make several references to an ape who walks like a man, has buttocks like humans, upright gait like humans, and I presume feet far more resembling a human’s than an ape’s. Why not take the logical step and say that Patterson’s Bigfoot is more humanlike than apelike. And since I am granting the reality of Patterson’s Bigfoot (for sake of argument), what then can we learn from the film that would explicate the creature further if we take that stance?

What can we discern if we compare Bigfoot to the Yeti? Both large bipedal “apes”, right? Unless, you look at their tracks. One is apelike, but not like any known ape. The other is humanlike, but not like any known human.

And when we talk of prehistoric “dawn” men, we are not, strictly speaking, talking about apes.
DWA responds: July 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
jerrywayne: OK, another mental exercise.

You’re on a planet in a far solar system. You’re a scientist, studying Earth; your specialty is these critters called primates, which contrary to all appearances, actually seem to be related to one another. An associate comes in your office one day and says, there’s another ape up there. You go, no way! There’s a game scientists like to play on your planet, so your associate doesn’t flat out tell you what the ape is like. He gives you two possibilites. (You know about all the nonhuman primates that happen to be recognized on Earth right now.) He gives detailed descriptions of both, and asks you to determine the more plausible of the two.

One of the possibilities described is homo sapiens; the other is the sasquatch. (And remember: for some reason, your planet knows nothing about homo sapiens. It’s almost like Earth that way.)

Which do you pick as the more plausible?

If you want to be seen as not being cuckoo, and don’t want to lose your goshrou;jla (your civilization’s word for “tenure”), you say, of course, the sasquatch. No-brainer.

Yes. That is how scientists work. Here on Earth too.

Regardless what you’ve said, scientists commonly recognize man as a primate, and an ape. rbhess went on at some length here about how the sas doesn’t fit any models of what we know to be real. Reason is: we either distort our models, or forget to include ourselves, when it comes to topics like this. Viewed with the full spectrum of possibilities, the sasquatch seems more than plausible. There is no way, knowing nothing about us, that an extraterrestrial observer would consider us a plausible primate, seeing the other ones on offer. But given us, well, the sas appears to fit right in.

The only problem with the magic act is (1) the “true” explanation is NOT simple and (2) there’s no evidence that anything like it happened. Whatever anyone wants to say about either Patty or the sasquatch in general: to the extent that evidence is available, the evidence points to the reality of the animal.

But you are right: people tend to get overly complicated when they are trying to explain away things that don’t fit their cherished models. Hence the huge reach that results in Pattyfake.

That may be why so many confuse me with a proponent. Your posts make it sound as if you were once a true believer who got disillusioned by seeing no proof. That seems to color your view of the evidence. I have never had that problem. As cool as the sas might be only one thing will convince me: evidence.

I am skeptical of any proposition in a scientific debate - which this clearly is - which is presented to me without evidence.

So far, that describes Pattyfake. The evidence can’t say Patterson was devious enough or deluded enough or greedy enough to do this. IT HAS TO SHOW HOW HE DID. Because all the other evidence says: he couldn’t.

Although I agree with mystery_man that Patty appears savaged beyond recovery, I believe that scientists perform a disservice to science when they reject a proposition with much evidence to support it, against which no effective counter has been offered.

THAT’S when I distrust scientists. When they fail to live up to science.
Ceroill responds: July 30th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I know there have been various experiments proposed on this site. At the risk of annoying some here, I propose one more pipe dream of an experiment.

This one is about perceptions. Ideally it would have to be done on groups of people, many groups, for a decent sampling. Here’s the basic concept. A group of people is taken camping for a weekend. They will know they will be seeing something, at some point, but not be told what. Some may suspect, that’s in the nature of the human mind.

At some point of the weekend there will be one of three presences passing by at a distance. A bear, a man in bulky outdoor clothing, or a man in a bigfoot costume. Finally there should be a control element of no encounter at all for some. The assignment of which it is should be random.

After the weekend the people in the group will file reports on what they saw. After the run of the experiment the results would be compiled, and the range and types of errors noted, as well as the relative accuracy.

This might be able to demonstrate to what degree a group of varied people would tend to misidentify a bear or a man as a bigfoot, or vice versa.

The bear of course would need to be a trained one.

Thoughts?
mystery_man responds: July 31st, 2007 at 10:51 am
DWA- I hope you know me well enough to know that I am not rejecting the sasquatch at all, nor even rejecting the PG film as false out of hand. I’m sure you must know my posts and my stance well enough that I hope you are not referring to me when you talk about disservices to science. I try to deal with the whole sasquatch phenomena as scientifically as I possibly can and I think I am extremely open minded for someone in a scientific field. I even go out on a limb enough that I am accused by others who are obviously scientists of some sort of not being very scientific at times. I do like to prod and pry where I may have no business as somewhat of a scientist myself, and often I will bring things up at odds with what others like me may think. However, there is only so far you can go before one starts to run the danger of making too many assumptions and I think this footage has gone as far as it can go. The bottom line is that we do not know if it is real and as such, it will never be fully accepted as the real deal until there is something more to corroborate it. I really feel to base any serious research on this footage would be a dangerous game and could seriously hurt the credibility of any such research.

Although I tend to be a skeptic, rest assured that the debunker arguments do not answer things for me in a completely satisfactory way and I am nowhere near rejecting sasquatch as a real creature. Unfortunately, I do have to accept the obvious need for more compelling evidence if funding and genuine interest from the scientific community are to get under way. This video unfortunately is not going to do it apparently, and no matter how compelling I may find it, I can see why not. If there is even a chance that it is not real, then any evidence or theory based on it is flawed. This is one reason why reproducible results are required in an experiment, because even the slightest chance that the results were influenced by an unknown factor would render any data gathered useless. No matter that the skeptics cannot reproduce it or explain exactly how it happened, the footage is still effectively an unknown and scientists just cannot do much with that as it stands now. I can appreciate this mode of thinking and I personally do not want to base too much on this video alone. Sasquatch research deserves better.

As far as this video goes, it is indeed just something to ponder, but as it stands I just think it cannot and should not be embraced fully as a bona fide sasquatch as long as some doubt is there. As far as sasquatch itself goes, I agree that it is not in the best interests of science to fully disregard the possibility. Fortunately, even some of the more hardcore skeptics here do not do that, so what is really needed is new evidence and I mean something that is really going to kick scientific interest into full gear. When that happens, I am sure there are going to be well funded researchers out in force. Please don’t take my skeptical bent as any sort of failure to science. I am approaching this phenomena with an open mind, but at the same time an understanding of what science requires, and my ideas often run quite the balancing act. Hard to stay up on the fence sometimes.
mystery_man responds: July 31st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Ceroill- Good experiment idea. With some tweaking, it could work and I’d be interested in seeing the results of something like that. Unfortunately there would be no sasquatch to test against, so the results would only realistically show the differences in perception between bears, bulky clothes and a costume. But wouldn’t it be the way of things for a real sasquatch to show up and ruin all of the data?
Ceroill responds: July 31st, 2007 at 11:38 am
mm- Yeah, that had occurred to me, too. I can just see the cartoon that could be drawn afterwards: The group of experimenters huddled around the campfire while a BF off to the side is thinking, “Ok…now to do my famous ‘bear walk’.”
DWA responds: July 31st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
m_m: I know that you know that I know you know I know.

Etc.
If there’s one thing I’ve said over and over here (and believe me there ain’t just one), it’s that one can’t do a search on 40-year-old evidence. Matt Crowley has it just right: it’s fetishizing, not research, and it isn’t moving the field forward.

And no company of scientists would need to be told about the dangers of taking something on which no consensus can be reached as holotypic in any way.

My only point is this: with all the hashing over this film has gotten - and no evidence that all the facets of such a fake would have been logistically possible, much less that it was actually done - it is more than worth repeatedly bringing that point up. (218 posts!) At least one young “mainstream” scientist has blogged quite effectively on this point (J. Darren Naish, one of whose blogs Loren featured here, “Frame 352 And All That”). More are entering the field every day. The more enter this discussion, the more are likely not to reject it out of hand, and to say: there’s something to this.

And compare notes. And look at the rest of the data.

And maybe, at long last, get us somewhere.
Alexandra responds: September 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
At the risk of sounding pervy I can tell you something that does not add up, everyone is talking about the breasts being a big thing that makes it real, but it is the reason I think this is fake. In all that swinging did you see the breasts move? They look muscular and static. When Patty swings around to the camera her breasts don’t swing as well. They are placed low on the torso simulating droopage, but for that amount of lowness they are not very droopy they also don’t look like they are make of fat to me. I think after living in the wild bra-less for a few years eventually gravity would stat to take it’s toll. Wow, I must sound like a total creep…. (Most lol)Men don’t have boobs so um yeah maybe less of a feeling of how they act umm… on a normal day to day basis….

(Wow I have totally embarrassed myself, I wonder if I should even post this…. oh well)
obastide responds: December 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I am going to give only one reason why I feel the film is authentic. This has been in the back of my mind for years, and I have never seen anyone else mention it elsewhere, although admittedly, I didnt wade through all of the verbiage above. Take one of the shots of Patty in three quarter profile. Freeze it. Imagine a straight line under her jaw and another imaginary line at a right angle to that extending up so that it just touches the lens of her left eyeball. Extend that line six or eight inches above that. Beyond the supra-orbital browridge, the line hits thin air because there is no skull there. The eyeball would be a fixed point, not something that could be shifted with makeup or a mask. If we were looking at a human in either, we would have forehead at that point above the eyeball and browridge, not thin air resulting from the slope of a sagittal crest.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Sasquatch Maximus

Spread the Word!

221 Responses to “Sasquatch Maximus”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

Cryptomundofor Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Sasquatch Maximus

Spread the Word!

221 Responses to “Sasquatch Maximus”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

microsoft office 2003 oem,

cheap software downloads,

The Logo Creator MEGA pak 3.6;

microsoft window 2000 professional oem software

software oem cd line business;

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More