Apes Don’t Call Names

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 17th, 2013

We posted audio from Sasquatch Ontario here and here on Cryptomundo.

This is what you get with 8 months of habituation with a sasquatch.

This is the result of dedication, perseverance and consistency.

As the PGF has stood the test of time, so will this audio.

If there are any audio analysts who work with law enforcement whose word is relied upon for convictions, please contact us through our channel if interested in pursuing the truth of this matter. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.Sasquatch Ontario

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

45 Responses to “Apes Don’t Call Names”

  1. cryptokellie responds:

    I heartily agree, this doesn’t sound like an ape at all. It sounds like a man making guttural noises with rain falling in the background. It sounds as though the audio was slowed down to add bass and give more resonance. In fact, it sound like the audio manipulation used to give the Troglodyte figure a voice in the 1977 Ray Harryhausen film “Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger” You can go to You Tube and hear the effect there from the film.

  2. Adam Prawlocki via Facebook responds:

    Again with this sort of audio. I hear nothing in there that cannot be easily reproduced by any deeper voiced man.

  3. William responds:

    This is a result of his understanding what”? Are we left to guess at what the maker of this is talking about?

  4. PhotoExpert responds:

    Mildly interesting audio.

    But for Sasquatch Ontario to make the statement: “As the PGF has stood the test of time, so will this audio.”

    Well, for me, that is a bold and ludicrous statement! I am actually shaking my head in disbelief. Think a bit high of yourself, Sasquatch Ontario? Seriously, there is no comparison between this audio and the PG footage. Not even close! Since we are in baseball season, I will use this comparison. It is like comparing a MLB Hall of Famer to a good high school baseball player. There is no comparison. They are not in the same league. You need to come down off that pedestal with this audio tape. It’s not even close!

    I will put it in other terms that most US people reading this would understand. It reminds me the 1988 Vice Presidential Debate. When Quayle and Bentsen were debating Bensten stated: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

    Well Sasquatch Ontario, most of us here have seen the PG footage. We know the PG footage! The PG footage has been analyzed over and over again. The PGF is the best evidence yet for the existence of BF because it has stood the test of time, like a friend. Sasquatch Ontario, this audio is no PG footage.

    Come down off that high horse! When you make outlandish statements like that, it takes away from any credibility this audio might have held. People tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And when you make ridiculous statements like comparing this audio to the PG footage, you do just that for your cause.

    Anyway, barring the ridiculous statement made by Sasquatch Ontario, this is a piece of pretty clear audio evidence of some animal, which by animal, I mean that includes humans, making some gutteral noises. That we could possibly analyze. But that is all it is, a simple piece of evidence. It is nowhere in the realm or on the same level as the PG footage.

  5. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Intriguing, but not enough to go on for determining the value of this. However–regarding the suggestion it’s just a person’s voice slowed-down: someone with audio-tech skills could easily speed this up to see if it sounds more human-like that way. That wouldn’t be conclusive, of course, but it would be interesting. (Also, aren’t there ways of analyzing a voice pattern to tell if it’s truly human or not?)

  6. DWA responds:

    And I’m betting apes don’t make those twisty toys either.

    I’m betting those were made by the guy who was taped making these sounds. Sessions like that can get kind of lengthy and boring I would imagine.

    Folks. Footprints are one thing. Lots of extremely consistent sightings of an animal consistent with what one would expect to make those footprints are one thing.

    I’m not seeing where the taped guy/twisty toy thing is getting us though.

  7. Chalupacabra responds:

    Anyone in law enforcement “whose word is relied upon for convictions” should think twice before staking their reputation on this audio. Otherwise, it would greatly endanger your credibility in law enforcement.

  8. Bipedal_Bill responds:

    I would say comparing it to the Patterson Gimlin footage is a wee bit of stretch.

  9. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    Presuming these sounds were made by a 7-9 ft tall individual, with correspondingly-sized sinus cavities, windpipe and lungs, I would expect louder, more resonant and MUCH deeper-pitched vocalizations than what are presented here. To my untrained ear, they certainly don’t sound outside the range human vocalizations.

    It also “sounds” as if the subject(s) was/were fairly close to the recording device, which begs the question: WHY DON’T THESE GUYS HAVE ANY GOOD PICTURES/VIDEO??? I mean, if Sasquatch are comfortable-enough approaching an electronic audio-recording device, why are they so pathologically averse to trail/video cams?

    It just doesn’t wash; if you’re close enough, both physically and socially, to these alleged creatures, why no hard photographic or physical (hair, feces, saliva, etc.) evidence after all this time (and Blair Witch-esque Straw Men don’t count)?

  10. Ploughboy responds:

    Just curious, what do we think a Sasquatch SHOULD sound like, huh? After all, wouldn’t you have to know that first off?

    I’ve pretty much assumed they would have some vocal abilities, even if we hadn’t seen repeated references to that in the second-hand accounts . My point being, they have to sound like something. Speculating on what a Sasquatch should sound like is a hopeless task, I would think. But, if you want to go there, it might sound remarkably like a human, only bigger. Which, this does. As do several other alleged recordings as well. If you’ve not heard the linguistic analysis of the slowed-down recording of the “Sierra Sounds” , I would recommend it for the curious. You might also search for the MS “tractor shed” recordings.

    Hoaxable? Oh yeah. Tell me what isn’t though.

  11. drjon responds:

    I’d be fascinated to see what results an experienced professional Sound Analyst would find.

  12. Peteyweestro responds:

    it is amazing, how everytime someone puts out some of their evidence the bigfoot community instantly jumps on it to tear it down and shred it to pieces. You all complain about wanting to proove they exist but every single item always gets shot down. I am in no way claiming this video of audio is real i am just saying this community is too much.

  13. dconstrukt responds:

    HAHAHAHA…. what a bunch of jabroni’s….

    this sounds like some jabroni making sounds…

    Peteyweestro, you’re a jabroni too…. you think the crap posted is real? They tear it down because 99.9999% of the crap posted is just that… crap. easily found to be hoaxed with anyone having an IQ over 20

  14. slappy responds:

    well, Peteyweestro, the reason that all of this “evidence” is torn down is simply that it is utter nonsense. the above is comical on its amateurishness.

    if you’ve got a Bigfoot hanging out making arts and crafts, I think there is better “proof” of its existence that you could come up with.

    this is nonsense.

  15. DWA responds:

    Peteyweestro: OK, you’re right. We are. But in cases like this it’s warranted.

    When you are using that ‘h’ word, and telling me this is a GIANT of the forest, well, I better see more than a black screen with “this is a primal people [sic].”

    Asking me whether that sounds like an ape to me sounds more like an insult. I’m just not sure whether the insult is to people or to apes. Maybe both.

    If you are stepping forward with proof, no excuses. Provide the proof.

  16. PhotoExpert responds:

    Peteyweestro–You seem a bit naive. Actually, the statement you made is not true. If you look at the number of responses, most of them consider this audio as evidence. No one here tore the evidence to pieces as you claim. However, what posters are tearing to pieces is the statement made by Sasquatch Ontario, and for good reason.

    To say that this evidence is at the level of the PG footage is just not so. The reason posters jumped on that and not the actual audio, is because anyone can say their evidence is of PG footage caliber when it is not. And here is where you are naive. Posters did jump all over that statement and not the evidence itself. And that is a good thing. Because if the Bigfoot community allows statements like that to stand, it sets back true scientific research, many years. We would end up like Matt Moneymaker and FB/FB calling everything a Bigfoot. We need to be objective, not believers and not militant sceptics. The camp of objectivity is where true scientific research takes place. When we embrace Finding Bigfoot and FB/FB, that is when one becomes the laughing stock of the world. Why do you think people tune into the Finding Bigfoot show? Is it because of the beauty of all the great looking cast members? No, those members are not the members of Bay Watch. Do you think people tune into that show because they think Matt and crew will actually find Bigfoot? No, they tune in to laugh at the antics of the crew, which I affectionately call the laughing stock of the scientific community.

    And where is FB/FB as they embraced the Rick Dyer story and that movie that flopped? They have egg on their face. Well, actually they had egg on their face long before that fiasco, for claiming known hoaxed videos as real evidence of Bigfoot. But I digress!

    If we do not separate the wheat from the chaffe, or reasonable evidence from hoaxes and pure junk, then we have ourselves to blame. Maybe three posters consider this evidence trash. But about nine posters consider it evidence–just not evidence close to the PG footage which Sasquatch Ontario claimed it to be. So the vast majority of posters, about 75% considered this evidence worthy of further investigation. So where do you get off saying that people jumped all over it and tore it to pieces. That is a false statement! Come into reality and count the numbers and read the responses. About 75% of the people responding here supported it by considering it as viable evidence. No one shot it down. What we did shoot down was the stupid or naive statement that it is as good as the PG footage, which it is definitely not!

    So your claim that this community is “way too much” does not hold up to the scrutiny of the evidence, or facts, as is witnessed by a simple reading and counting of the posts here. The evidence itself contradicts your statement there. Even you stated, “I am in no way claiming this video of audio is real…”

    By your standards, are you tearing apart this evidence too by not claiming it is real? Many of us were even more supportive of it than you. We actually claimed it as viable evidence to be evaluated. You on the other hand did shy away from that stance. So which is it? You seem to be less supportive of the evidence here than most other posters, yet you do not endorse it or even claim that it could be real evidence. That my friend, according to your own standards of judgement, makes you one of the ones “shooting it down”. That would be hypocritical! It is like a sinner throwing stones at others. So which is it? You chastise people here for shooting down evidence when in reality, most posters support it as evidence as you hypocritically distance yourself from supporting said evidence.

    Think before you post next time! Also consider the other side of the coin before posting. To embrace every shoddy piece of evidence would be like saying everything that moves is a Bigfoot. That is why the intellectual people of Cryptomundo scrutinize evidence. If not, hoaxers and charlatons would run amuck. But in this case, no one or the majority did not have a problem with this evidence. The only problem was the outlandish statement of Sasquatch Ontario. We did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. And that my friend, is what I cautioned him about in my post!

    Read and learn, class dismissed!

  17. mandors responds:

    I agree with everyone that PGF, this isn’t. Provenance is the key: where, who, when, how, etc. The hubris of the source could be either PT Barnum hype, or genuine overzealousness. Maybe the guy did the work and got this result. If so, then hats off to him.

    I do think the trinkets are interesting. How thick are those branches, and whether or not made by a Bigfoot, they’re pretty cool. If they are what they appear to be: inch to three quarter inch branches, even if green, that would take some serious strength and skill to make by hand.

    I’ve been to the youtube page. Seems to be a bunch of videos prints and marking structures. (Timber Giant Bigfoot has better, though blobsquatchy, Ontarian footage.)

    Chewie: Yup, an expert should be able to analyze the sounds and determine if it’s within human range. They’d also be able to tell if it’s making sounds outside our range of hearing.

    Petey: You should see when this board rips into something. This is nothing.

  18. G. de La Hoya responds:

    Sounds pretty similar to the voice on Pink Floyd’s tune “One of these Days” from the Meddle album.

  19. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ Mandors, Concerning the vine sculptures, we are given no information to judge size other than what we see. The repeated showing of these pics with no context and no comment tells its own story.

    What are we shown? A tabletop, a plant, and shiny glass/plastic bulbs.

    The tabletop looks like those inexpensive imports of light-colored exotic hardwoods that flooded the market 10 or 12 years ago (tv trays and the like). These were made of boards 1 1/2 to 2 inches wide, glued up. If the table is one of these, then that puts the vines at 1/8 inch wide, give or take.

    If we accept that vine sculptures were made in the forests of Ontario, then we can look at what vines there match. There is a very distinctive single bud in the run of the vine. I’d first guess moonberry, with virginia creeper as a runner up. This puts us in the 1/8 inch wide ballpark again. Grapevine can have a bud like this too, but once you get thicker than 1/4 inch or so grapevine gets a woody striated skin. Can anybody here ID the vine?

    The baubles look like the type on a wire, like you would find on a cut floral arrangement. If so, this keeps the porportion of the vines in the 1/8 inch range.

    While I am open minded to the existence of bigfoot, I have a hard time believing they would have the manual dexterity for such fine-scale work. If the vines were a lot wider than my guess (1/2 inch or more), I suspect you’d have to soak them in boiling water to make them pliable enough to work them so tightly. My guess is bored human hands made these.

    The originator has shown these vine sculptures on past videos, but never comments on them. In one video he mentions a “gift tree” he puts presents on for bigfoot. I guess we are to assume these are the presents he is leaving.

    I didn’t listen to this one, but on his other audio, bigfoot not only forms words that he supposedly overheard from the hushed-toned campers, but strings things together liguistically. This supposed understanding of language from a casual encounter with a limited word set is problematic to belief.

    Personally, I think the posts from this person are a load of bunk. I think the originator is not malicious, just spinning his own folktales in wider and wider circles from his corner of the woods and enjoying all the attention he is getting from the world at large. More power to him, he’s not hurting anybody, and maybe over time his submissions will cross the threshold into better entertainment.

  20. hoodoorocket responds:

    Meant to say moonseed was a possibilty for the vine, not moonberry…

  21. mandors responds:

    Sorry Petey, I thought I posted my warning first before the crew set in on you. I was wrong.

    In fact, I was going to finish my first post with the words “Paging: dconstrukt!”


  22. cryptokellie responds:

    To Ploughboy…
    OK, I will tell you what would not be hoax-able evidence;
    1. A body – alive or dead and the DNA contained. End of story.
    2. A representative piece of a body, even one tooth and the DNA contained.
    3. And this is a distant third…a near, clear, demonstrable and factual video that can be studied and have details that can be measured for pertinent information and verification.

  23. William responds:

    Anyone else notice the little vine ball appears to have two metal ball bearings inside it? I wonder were a sasquatch would have obtained those? In his machine shop inside his cave?

  24. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ cryptokellie and everyone else:

    The only evidence I find compelling is the PG film, which I think is safe to put in your category 3.

    Does anyone have any evidence they find to be truly compelling besides the Patterson film?

    I’m talking evidence that doesn’t make you go “hmmm, maybe”, but evidence that makes you go “holy crap, now I have re-evaluate how much of my accepted universe is a complete lie.”

    Anybody got any of those?

  25. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ Mandors, in all fairness, we have yet to determine that Dconstrukt isn’t anything more than a figment of our inferior imaginations.

    @ Peteyweestro, to answer you question, we must be critical of evidence, not to criticize the poster, but to test what is presented in order to form a conclusion.

    Online, many of us are overly critical, to hide a fear of being had, or to look intelligent, but in the end we are left to draw our own conclusions about what is presented.

    I am mistaken for a close-minded skeptic often because the great majority of what is presented is suspect.

  26. cryptokellie responds:

    To Hoodoorocket;
    Yes, I would put the P/G film into the lower drawer of category three. With all the information gleaned from the film it is compelling but unfortunately, not clear enough to be conclusive.
    A conclusive video/film will not be able to be “claimed” by fringe people like Ray Wallace, Phillip Morris and Bob Hieronimus…

  27. corrick responds:

    Concerning the P-G film as conclusive evidence…

    The original 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera that Patterson used was a rental so it can never be examined and tested. This point is critical since that model, the the 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera was notorious for its inaccuracy of film speeds. (Look it up). Patterson stated he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but didn’t remember the camera’s setting that day. It also had settings of 32, 48, and 64 frames per second but those settings aren’t relevant, just the only one lower than 24, at 16 frames per second.
    Analysis after analysis by believers and skeptics alike always echo what John Napier wrote long ago. “If the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature’s walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man’s gait.” Why he mentioned 18 fps back then is a mystery to me unless he was also aware of that particular cameras notoriety for frame speed inaccuracy.
    So since the exact camera used by Patterson can never be examined, whether it was at 14,15,16,17,18 or 22,23,24,25,26 frames per second there are actually TEN different versions of the Patterson-Gimlin film and all ten are equally likely to be the genuine speed. You want to believe? Then you choose the lower speeds or if you’re a skeptic you choose the higher ones. However, without the original camera no one will ever know know which of the ten possible speeds is true. Not the believers, nor the skeptics.
    Interesting? Fascinating? Compelling? For sure. But without the camera, it’s forever inconclusive and strictly in the eye of the beholder skeptic and believer alike.

    My 50 cents.

  28. Allen Garmon via Facebook responds:

    Cryptokellie is right on – it does sound just like the troglodyte in “Eye Of The Tiger.”

  29. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ Corrick,

    Being, myself, ancient enough to have used film movie cameras, I’m not terribly impressed with the film speed brouhaha. The fact that the film is correctly exposed tells me that the person who loaded the film and made it ready for daylight shooting purposefully set a frame rate and the f stop combination. Correct exposure = not a mistaken film speed. Do we know what the frame rate was? No. Does it matter? Not much.

    Exposing motion picture film correctly does not necessarily mean you have to know the weather ahead of time, or use a super expensive light meter a second before pulling the trigger. You can be very much in the ballpark simply by knowing the film ISO/ASA rating and applying that to the “sunny 16” rule of exposure.

    While the frame per second setting is mildly interesting, it hardly counts as a criteria for proving or discounting the veracity of the filmed image, in my opinion. I’m not sure why anyone would pick this to loose sleep over when there is so much out there to choose from.

    Silent film rates were variable and much different than sound films. We’ve watched “Metroplis” and “Birth of a Nation” for most of a century at a sped up rate. Does that mean that Brigette Helm and Lillian Gish aren’t human?

    The creature shown on the Patterson film has a skeletal frame work with muscle, tendons, and sagging skin in a way that is impossible to fake. The locomotive function of the foot shows a midtarsal break. The thigh reveals a herniated muscle. Modern digital techniques haven’t disproved it, they have actually revealed details that make it more likely to be genuine.

    There are myriad arguments on both sides as to whether the gait could or could not be human. Reviewing them reveals that the side claiming it cannot be duplicated by a human usually presents a sound argument while the side that says it could be human mostly starts from a prejudged outcome and provides dismissive evidence to support it. If I’ve missed some that contradict this statement, I’d be glad to be made aware of them.

    I keep an open mind. I don’t know what the PG film shows. What I do know is that there have been many detractors and not one of them so far has presented an argument that has held water. The great majority of them start from a point of open dismissiveness and follow through with no real argument to support their view.

  30. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Far as I’m concerned, questions surrounding the movie camera used for the P-G film are a complete red herring. Bottom line is, the creature in that footage has never been convincingly replicated by any person in a costume–not even remotely. Until any of the critics and skeptics can do that, concerns about camera speed are a non-issue.

  31. hoodoorocket responds:

    By the way, John Napier is a perfect example of a dismissive argument that is accepted as authoratative.

    After first looking at the PG film he did not, to my knowledge (please correct me if anyone has a citation), provide an argument saying “this is fake because of this, this, and this”. What he said was “the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind”- that is a dismissive statement with nothing behind it.

    It is interesting that he later changed his view to undecided after hearing well presented arguments to the contrary. This indicates that for most of his bigfoot career he was making sh*t up as he went along.

    Why an expert on primates would weigh in on the field of motion picture photography in the first place is strange. More bizarre still is the fact that when he says outright silly things on the subject he is accepted as an authority.

    Napier’s cited range of of film speeds was wrong. Faulty memory? Typo? Thinking of some other camera he knew nothing about? Making stuff up because he had a pipe and leather patches on his sleeves (this is my personal guess)?

    His statement that 24 fps would be choosen because it was best for TV transmission is simply bizarre. The television transmission projector with its synchro-burst lamp is going to transmit any film run through it at 24 fps, no matter what the original film’s recorded frame rate was. That is a far different fact than broadly stating that the PG film camera was set with TV transmission in mind.

    Of all the film transmitted on the nightly news through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, only a portion were shot at 24 fps (when light conditions allowed for it). All film was shot for the best exposure possible under the light conditions. The light conditions dictate the frame rate and f stop. TV projection was not a consideration, not even to news cameramen. A viewable image was the first order of business, viewers didn’t notice if it was slightly sped up or slowed down.

    Napier’s statement that at one film speed the subject has to be human, but at another film speed the subject has to be not human defies the laws of the known universe. It is stupid on its face value and stupider the more you think about it.

    This is the kind of sh*t I’m talking about. Why does the world accept what they are spoon-fed? We need to think for ourselves whether the “expert” is qualified. We need to critically examine the evidence, and critically examine the arguments on either side. Is the evidence sound? Is the argument strong? Is the argument prejudged? The evidence, the argument, and the speaker are suspect until proven otherwise.

  32. PhotoExpert responds:

    hoodoorocket–Good information on the vines there! I was going to come in and post about that, but you beat me to it and covered it well. Oh, and hoodoorocket, sometimes we must criticize the poster. This holds true when false or innaccurate statements are made. If you read the posts, all are corrections to innaccurate or false statements. You are definitely correct in that a great majority of what is presented as evidence is suspect. I can’t believe people take you as a sceptic. You are not! You are objective. I would not classify you as a “believer”. Nor would I classify you as a “militant sceptic”. I would put you in my camp of “objectivity”. While in that camp, you can remain sceptical as part of the scientific process and you go where the data takes you, not where your belief system tries to put the data. You are objective!

    cryptokellie–Can we add clear, crisp photographs to your #3? Afterall, video is just a series of stills. Unfortunately, I think that even if we get great video, there will still be nuts coming out of the closet claiming that was them in a BF costume. You can’t stop crazy!

    William–Those vines were made by humans as gift toys for Sasquatch. Read hoodoorocket’s post. In fact, try to read all the posts before you post. Usually, questions are answered.

    Corrick–Yes, you are correct about the film speed issue. You covered that very well and accurately. Patterson could not remember the setting. However, that has very little to do with all the other aspects of the film. I am sure you are familiar with them–quadracep movement which you would not see in a costume, the inability of anyone to produce a suit today that was claimed to have been worn that comes near lifelike, footprints being found and documented that were not human, the way the subject of the film turns it’s should with it’s head, etc. There are so many other things that point to authentic footage and none of them have anything to do with film speed. So for me, the filmspeed setting is really little to no issue when taking into account all the other evidence.

    I just wanted to keep you honest about the film speed being a determining factor on authenticity of video footage. It is not!

    My 50 cents!

  33. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ photoexpert, thanks, it is always a good exercise to “see” what we are shown, instead of interpreting what we are shown.

    It is interesting when unrelated fields of study start to meld together when you follow them long enough. For example two completely different topics; detective investigation/interview techniques and spiritual mysticism. Nothing to do with each other, yet they both strive to stop interpreting sensory input in order to observe reality.

    A couple of questions for everyone:

    On the Patterson camera, do we know the lenses that were on the turret and how fast they were (the f stop range)?

    Talking about movie cameras got me to scratching numbers to see what combinations of frame rates and f stops could give a decent exposure. There are a lot of unknowns, but taking some guesses and doing the math, I estimate that at a 24 fps rate one would open up the aperture a single stop from f16 to f11.

    I get this by guessing the kodachrome used was daylight type (ASA 25). I guessed the angle of aperture for the camera was 170 degrees, which should be pretty close.

    What I don’t know is what lenses were on the turret, how fast they were, and which lens was supposedly used. Does anybody know any of these factors?

    If I knew the lens, I could look at the background of the PG film compared to the focus zone, the next time I see it at a decent resolution. One could make an educated guess whether the depth of field was appropriate for the guessed f stop. It would be a subjective and futile exercise, unless it was obvious that the f stop did not match the depth of field, then one could run the numbers for 18 fps or 16 fps.

    Totally subjective, totally futile, but it might keep me off the streets while your kids are at the playground.

  34. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ Corrick,

    Apparently I’m bored tonight…

    Rereading your post I see I misread it this morning. I thought you were attributing the range of 14 to 26 frames per second to Napier. I see now that this is your own statement.

    The camera itself would have had frame settings that included 16 fps, 18 fps, and 24 fps (and higher fps too). These three specifically were standard running speeds made to match projectors of different vintages. That would be the reason Napier lists them.

    Overall, the camera was an awesome workhorse that ran well in extreme environments without the need for batteries. A clock spring motor with a single massive drive gear and a rubber retarder wheel to control speed, in a small aluminum shell that was practically bulletproof. The speed fluctuations you mentioned were real, but very acceptable for the overall crudeness of the art. In fact if you want to get really anal, the beginning of a shot would record faster than the end of the shot (would it be noticeable? no.). Like any spring motor camera, when the slop got unacceptable you replaced the spring or the camera, just as SLR camera bodies today get replaced once the shutter is worn out. I defy the average viewer to notice a tolerance of plus or minus a couple of frames per second. The same slop tolerance could equally be had from one projector to the next.

    All and all a harsh criticism of a great camera that proved itself for fifty years running without much change, and all for the goal of slagging patty (I’m not really sure what the goal was?). Unknown frame rate aside, I’m guessing the speed criticism for the cine-100 only appears in recent times from online people obsessed with gaining milliseconds of processor speed, rather than by cinematographers that might have used the thing.

  35. Goodfoot responds:

    The two Sierra Sounds CDs (which seem to be genuine and have been analyzed as containing frequencies both above and below human range) contain very similar utterances, and is consistent with my encounter as well. I’m not telling any of you you have to believe, but I AM telling you there’s nothing really new in these recordings; the sounds are pretty widely known.

    And if you didn’t know that, you should have. If you did know that, you’re playing games or being dishonest.

  36. William responds:

    @PhotoExpert – regarding your statement as I quote below:

    “William–Those vines were made by humans as gift toys for Sasquatch. Read hoodoorocket’s post. In fact, try to read all the posts before you post. Usually, questions are answered.”

    Uh, I did read that post and all others. So I don’t need to “try” anything, but thanks for the condescending advice. Maybe you should do a better job of interpreting what you read, as then you might catch the word “assume” that hoodoorocket used to give his take on the maker of the toys in question.

    I for one do not necessarily “assume” anything, but if I did I would not see why these toys would be noteworthy to show in a video unless they were being portrayed as made by a sasquatch.

    Maybe you should contemplate that before offering unsolicted advice to me that I should automatically agree with an assumption by another poster here.

  37. PhotoExpert responds:

    hoodoorocket–You are welcome! And thank you! By the way, there was a great post here at Cryptomundo with links to various sites discussing and analyzing the PG footage, camera used, re-enactment of the video with measurements being taken, and all kinds of other interesting facts. Try doing a search here at Cryptomundo for that post. It was really laid out nicely! And it probably contains at least some of the things you were looking for. It might answer a few questions that you have. I thought I saved the link for that to my favorites but I can not find it.

    William–Sorry about that! My intention was not that, to sound condescending. Yes, I do post condescendingly sometimes when a poster warrants it, but this was not one of those times. This is the problem with the written word online. Sometimes, the post comes across differently than intended. But I reread it and I do see where it could have been interpreted differently than I intended.

    I should have elaborated a bit more with you and not shortened the post. You wrote: “Anyone else notice the little vine ball appears to have two metal ball bearings inside it? I wonder were a sasquatch would have obtained those? In his machine shop inside his cave?”

    Initially, I thought you missed hoodoorocket’s post or why else would you have posted about the ball bearings? So I kind of directed you to hoodoorocket’s post. Why else would someone be asking those kind of questions if they were already answered, I thought. I thought you must have missed it. Or maybe, you know how sometimes we post something and it does not show up here until much later? Well, maybe you posted before reading hoodoorocket’s post. So my real intention was to draw you to that post. And if by chance you had not read it or decided to post without reading any posts in that thread, I was giving you a quick caution to please read all the posts before posting. My intentions were nothing more or nothing less than that.

    That is the way I meant it to sound. But given my past flavor of writing condescending posts to some posters that warrant it, this was not one of those times, nor are you one of those people I would do that with! I usually agree with a lot of your past postings. But I understand why you would take it that way you did, that I was posting condescendingly towards you when I was not trying to do that. So for that, I am sorry and I understand why you took at as you did!I am enough of a big man to take responsibility for my fault in you reading more into my post than was intended by me. I own up to that and part of it is due to my past posting personality. No harm or foul was meant intentionally from me, although I see now you took it that way. Believe me, if I was going after you or directing something toward you in a condescending fashion, you would KNOW it. And I would make no bones about it and go after you directly and let you know I was calling you out. It would be clear to everyone, including you! By the same token, when I am not going after you in a condescending fashion and you interpret it as such, I will man up and apoligize for the misunderstanding I may have created. I did just that!

    I takes a real man to say he is sorry, even for just making someone perceive that they were being chided in a condescending fashion. Forgive me?

  38. PhotoExpert responds:

    William–One more thing. I left his part out of my last post.

    You stated: “I for one do not necessarily “assume” anything, but if I did I would not see why these toys would be noteworthy to show in a video unless they were being portrayed as made by a sasquatch.”

    I could not agree with you more on that! See, where my condescending post was unintentional, this kind of crap, showing a picture of the toy and portraying it as made by a Sasquatch, is definitely intentional! Why do that?

    So that is a great point! And like I said, I usually agree with your postings. Case in point!

  39. William responds:

    @PhotoExpert: Not a big deal, I don’t even need to forgive you, as you have now explained that your comment was not intended as condescending.

    BTW, I enjoy mostly all posts here and appreciate your apology, even though unnecessary. Actually, I am more appreciative that you now see my point and agree with it.

    Thank you!

  40. chadgatlin responds:

    They are definitely making the claim that the doll-things shown came from sasquatch. They have another video entitled “Apes Don’t Weave” where they show more of this type of thing. They acknowledge that there are marbles, and say they come from sasquatch as well.

  41. corrick responds:

    Final note. Understand, when discussing the camera speed, I’m merely pointing out that the walking motion of the the P-G creature filmed can never be claimed as being either beyond or within human capability.

    I’ll add this in parting. It is my understanding that the original Patterson film itself has never been offered for examination to believers or skeptics. Only 2nd generation copies. I’ve also read that the pixel information in these copies is not enough for anyone to prove definitive muscle flexing, zippers or whatever. That what we see is what our expectations are. If I’m wrong feel free to educate me with facts.

    The P-G film. Interesting? Fascinating? Compelling? For sure.

    But even after 50 years worth zero as proof of bigfoot.

  42. PhotoExpert responds:

    hoodoorocket–I don’t mean to throw a wrench in the works at this point, but it could be that the camera in question was able to handle interchangeable lenses. In other words, in the old days, cameras came with a standard lens. But you were able to purchase other focal length lenses. So you would have to make sure what lens was being used.

    But here’s the thing hoodoorocket, as you and I have so astutely pointed out in our previous posts, it does not matter about the focal length of the camera, nor the frame per second rate. All of that is arbitrary and just a red herring to take away from real analysis. All that does not matter, because the film shows what the film shows. First or second generation copies of the film are even very clear and show defined muscle tone, quadracep movement, turning of the shoulder and head which only great apes do, etc, etc. And your point was correct about the f/stop. It does not matter either. You are correct, you matched the f/stop back then to get a proper exposure. Not having the correct f/stop would only give you an overexposed or underexposed film. The only other thing, not having the correct f/stop would effect, would be depth of field. However, with the subject being in focus, that is the main thing. To analyze the subject, I don’t need to see the leaves on the trees in the background, as long as the subject was in focus and it was! I don’t need to see the foreground either, just the subject. So the f/stop setting makes no difference really in the analysis of the film, as long as we can see the subject clearly! And we do! You got it right! End of story!

    William–Yes, we are on the same page. And from the posts made by you, we have been on the same page for some time. Not a problem. And yes, I definitely agree with what you posted and the sentiment of that post. Absolutely agree with you!

    You know William, when it comes to hoaxers and the fringe element which includes “believers” and “militant sceptics”, they will utilize any tool at their disposal to prove their point. And therein lies the problem. Real evidence gets muddled up with the bogus and questionable evidence.

    Let’s say I am out in the forest somewhere, an occassionally black bears are seen there but only once every 20 years or so. And I happen to see one. I know I saw a bear. Yes, there will be those that say bears only come around there once in 20 years, and they will question that I saw a bear. Others, who saw the bear too would agree with me. And others who did not see the bear would agree with me.

    But then I also find nearby, a stick figure woven together. I would not equate the two together. I would not assume that the bear left the stick figure. But others would try to equate the two. Hoaxers would make a stick figure, claim they saw the bear and that the bear left it there. Others, who saw the bear, would say it was possible but highly unlikely. Still others, especially militant sceptics would say that no such bear ever existed and nor did the stick figure. And then, as always, you would have your nut cases chiming in with their two cents of an star traveling interdimensional bear with an artistic ability and so on.

    The real problem usually comes from the people and their agenda and not necessarily the evidence. That is why I am always calling for people to remain in the camp of objectivity and to take in all evidence, including eyewitness testimony. And like you said William, why would someone put those woven figures in that video unless they were trying to correlate them to BF? Good point!!! And the asnwer is, what camp they come from and will it work to progress their agenda.

    If I could not prove a bear was there, but wanted people to believe what I actually saw, I could get some black bear scat and bag it and say I got this from the scene of my sighting. Did I see the bear? Yes! Was it a rare sighting? Yes! But since some people did not believe me, I planted evidence to make a true story even truer for the doubters. There is no need to do that. And I have a feeling, this is what has occurred with this video and the woven figure. It is as if Sasquatch Ontario is saying, see, I even have these stick men to prove my already true story to those that have any doubts and this makes it as good as the PG film.

    Uh, no it does not. And Sasquatch Ontario, you claiming it does not make it so. It is nowhwere near PG footage type proof. Not even close. And it falls a couple a points in credibility for you even making such a moronic statement!

    For me, if they are a credible witness, we must take into account their eyewitness testimony. I believe they saw what they saw and heard what they heard. Scientifically speaking, we must consider that evidence. The determining factor on whether to consider that evidence lies in credibility. I do not find Sasquatch Ontario to be credible and putting this audio on the level of evidence the PG film holds. And when Sasquatch Ontario goes on to state that it is, it makes him less credible and therefore, his evidence less credible.

    See you around Cryptomundo William!

  43. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ William & chadgatlin: Not sure where I picked it up – maybe I just assumed (and I know that can be a dangerous thing!)- that the marbles/ball bearings (whatever!)were originally placed, by the Researchers, at the so-called Gift Tree and then allegedly returned, by Bigfoot, woven into the figurines…

  44. chadgatlin responds:

    @AreWeThereYeti (great name btw) Judging by their own comments on Sasquatch Ontario’s Youtube channel videos, it seems like you are correct.

  45. William responds:

    @PhotoExpert: You last post above was spot on. I too look forward to you being around Cryptomundo and enjoy your posts.

    @AreWeThereYeti: If what you have picked up is in any way possibly true (the Ontario group left the marbles/bearings as a gift and received the woven vine items (toys) in return than indeed, this would be fantastic evidence of the highest level. But that is a big if, as there is no actual proof. Same with the sounds recorded and portrayed as a BF’s attempt at replicating human speech.

    I seem to recall one Janice Carter from Kentucky who was ridiculed and dismissed as a kook by everyone in the BF community, except for Igor Burtsev, from Russia, who actually visited her place and took some photos of alleged toys (one was a hard ball of mud with a feather attached) that were made by the BF she called “Fox” and whom she claimed spoke some English with a “deep gravelly voice.” So we see some similiarities here. So either this is a fairly well thought out hoax, using some of similarites to the Carter case “evidence,” or perhaps Janice Carter was telling the truth all along? She also supposedly plucked a hair from “Fox” and I believe it was tested and found to be dog hair, but not sure?

    I guess we should all keep an open mind that just because something seems far fetched, it doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true. (Unless it comes to a Dyer hoax, who I believe is actually doing an experiment to show how easy it is to get the so called “BF” community in a wild goose chase and an uproar over insanely stupid alleged evidence.)

    However, when something bears a high degree of similarity to a known hoax, – such as Dyer and his encore performance with a fake body in a freezer, the antenna are bound to be raised, and rightfully so.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.