Bigfoot files

[Michael]

Okay I took this from the James Randi web page. Remember that famous bigfoot footage? Well a guy used a computer and took all of the shakyness out of the film and it reveals that the "creature" has a very human gait to it.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

[ovyyus]

I remember seeing a doco on this hoax - the guys supposedly responsible for it were tracked down and they fully admitted that it was a hoax. The fellow who was employed (but never got paid) to wear the suit had the exact same walk - lol

[Patrick]

Cool. Still looks like Bigfoot to me. Ha ha.

[ken_behrendt]

I, too, recall seeing a documentary on the famous Roger Patterson film that concluded that it was...genuine! Of course, Bill, if you saw a documentary wherein Patterson admitted that it was a hoax, then what would certainly seem to negate its reality.

In the documentary I saw, a fellow who did special effects for Disney films reviewed the Patterson film and pointed out that as the Bigfoot (known as a"Yowie" in Australia, I believe) strides away from the camera, one can make out the shape of its leg muscles flexing under the fur covered skin! The FX expert claimed that if he had to build such a suit for use in a movie that it would probably cost about $1 million USD!

Also, in the documentary, an anthropologist who was an expert of apes studied the film and claimed that he was convinced it was genuine because when the retreating figure turns to look as the camera, it must pivot its entire upper torso to do so. It was pointed out that this type of motion is seen in gorillas whose necks to not contain enough cervical verterbrae to allow them to twist their heads to far to either side.

Someone else pointed out that the retreating bigfoot in the film is that of a female! Apparently, one can see pendulous breasts on the figure as she turns to face the camera.

When I watch the film in real time, I am impressed with the swinging motion of the arms. They do not swing rapidly, but rather slowly which suggests that they are very heavy and, like massive pendula, have a low swing frequency.


In any event, even if the film is a hoax (and an incredible one at that!), I still believe that genuine bigfeet exist out there. They have been mentioned in various native legends throughout the world and I think I even saw another documentary wherein fur samples from such a creature were found and analyzed at a lab in China. Conclusion? They could not be matched to any known primate species!

Sooner or later, some hunter is going to bag one of these creatures and it will be big news all over the world...


ken

[ovyyus]

Ken, never forget that you can always find an expert to say whatever you want to hear.

The Patterson film hoax...

http://www.looksmarttrends.com/p/articl ... i_n6145280

http://www.rense.com/general49/making.htm

In any event, even if the film is a hoax (and an incredible one at that!), I still believe that genuine bigfeet exist out there.

Then I guess you've already made up your mind and it's pointless discussing it.

[Michael]

Randi updates his site every Friday.

BIGFOOT REVISITED

Reader Martin Blazevich clarifies a detail about the Bigfoot item of last week:

At a recent Halloween convention (Hauntcon '04 in Charlotte, NC), I met Philip Morris (no relation to the tobacco folks). He made the costume (for $435) for Roger Patterson to use in this famous Bigfoot video. And technically, Amy Morris (Philip's wife), stitched the costume.

There are interviews (on the web via Google) where Morris gives some interesting details about this transaction: phone calls from Patterson, advice on how to comb the fur to make it look more realistic, etc.

And, I think Mr. Morris said that the same costume is still available for anyone to buy.

Some staunch supporters of the existence of Bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti/whatever, clinging to this rather abandoned notion, wrote me in alarm that I would question the claim for a fuzzy beast who apparently evaporates after dying, and needs far too few of its members to maintain the sort of gene pool weÂ’d expect. Reader Stanley Rose points out that the clip I linked to, was prepared by M. K. Davis, a staunch defender of the Patterson film, on a website full of articles defending its authenticity. Writes Stanley:

If you would take 5 seconds and actually do some basic anatomical measurements from those film stills, you'd see one of the reasons why the film endures. The legs, arms, chest, etc. are way out of proportion to just about any human you could find, so any hoax would require major enhancements to any "monkey suit" – serious padding and prosthetics for the long arms for example – which in turn would make it very difficult for a hoaxer to walk with any degree of relaxed movement. That's why despite numerous attempts by well-funded individuals nobody has done a decent job at replicating the "hoax." Add to that the remote location (I’ve been there – it’s not a place you'd want to drag a monkey suit to!), the corroborating prints at the site, not to mention why the heck anyone would add breasts to the suit, and just maybe you can begin to understand why the film endures.

Pause for comments: First, making reasonably accurate proportional measurements from a blurred image is just not possible. This is one of those analog situations in which a researcher can interpolate and extrapolate with freedom, to obtain figures well suited (no pun intended!) to a theory. Viewing the clip, I honestly don’t see anything like the information suggested here, though I cannot claim any anatomical expertise. Any “major enhancements” made to the costume are not unlikely, at all; I’d spend some time on them, if I were – perish the thought – involved in any such hoax. The fact that no one has succeeded in “replicating” the film, proves nothing; I believe that if the JREF were appropriately funded for a special project of this sort, we could turn out a great film along these lines – but replication would only prove that it’s possible to make a convincing film. It would not say anything about the original. I have to wonder why Stanley tells us that it’s a major job to take a monkey suit to a remote location, and wonders why anyone would add breasts to the suit – an addition that’s not at all obvious to me, on viewing it. That addition, if it’s there, would be precisely the sort of detail that I’d add, if I were involved….!

But even Stanley has his own doubts:

I personally wouldn't bet on the existence of Bigfoot; I think there's a serious lack of solid evidence. I don't know whether the film was a hoax or not. But your dismissal was pretty lame.

Stanley, I wasn’t trying to provide an historical event, merely pointing readers to a new bit of evidence. Yes, the Patterson film will be embraced and held aloft by Bigfoot fans, into coming generations. Sigh. But dead Bigfoots (?) will still not be found, hair samples will continue to mysteriously match bison and bears, more fuzzy photos will surface, and it will never quite go away – as the mythical beast itself, like King Kong, seems to always be with us….

[Fletcher]

I saw that doco too Ken. IIRC the labs established it was a primate hair but of unknown origin, ruling out commonly known apes alive today.

I always favoured the thought that they could be descendants of Gigantopithicus (sp?) especially if they were able to survive & hide in the rugged terrain of central China etc. They were once wide spread so if bigfoot exists then perhaps remanent populations exist around the world. It's not to far fetched when you consider that a population of very small hominids lived on Indonesia's Florences Island until circa 13,000 years ago & were wiped out but volcanic activity only recently.

Another thought is that they could also be offshoot descendents of a species called Goliath from which it is now believed modern homo sapiens evolved according to the latest Natural Geographic doco I watched a month or two ago.

[ken_behrendt]

Fletcher...

I, too, am of the belief that the various reported sightings of Bigfoot (and Yowie, Sasquatch, Skunk Ape, Momo, Yeti, etc.) can probably be attributed to a surviving worldwide remnant population of the Gigantopithecus. I think I read once that they have found the fossilized skeleton remains of these creatures in China. The skeletons indicate an ape-like creature with a height estimated to be between 7 and 9 feet and body weights up to 800 lbs! Not the kind of creature you would want to get in a bad mood!

There's an article on my website titled "The Hidden Realms of the Underworld" in which I go into an analysis of how life could exist, in the form of small colonies, within the crust of the Earth. I think it is definitely possible.

Of course, those that deny the existance of such creatures can always claim that no one has been able to capture or kill one and that would seem to indicate that they are only imaginary.

Well, I like to think that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. People worldwide are seeing something and they have managed to find the footprints left by these creatures. Yes, they can be faked (I once owned such a faked print, but it was obvious that it was faked), but there have been a lot of footprints that, from a forensics point of view, did seem to have been made by a creature with a very heavy body weight.

Assuming that they are real, I wonder how they view the races of humans that now inhabit the surface of Earth. Do they envy us or fear us? Obviously, they are not going out of their way to make contact (at least that we know of). I just hope that if surface humanity does eventually located the colonies of these creatures that we will have enough sense to avoid trying to harm them and, possibly, attempt to establish some sort of peaceful communication with them. No doubt, they might have much to tell us about the history of this planet that we know nothing of at the moment...


ken