Back to the Future: October 20, 1967

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 25th, 2008

Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.


71 Responses to “Back to the Future: October 20, 1967”

  1. swnoel responds:

    The only reason this footage has been the holy grail to the believers is because it hasn’t been proven a hoax… yet.

    In the hundreds of years that this country has been settled, we have yet to gain proof this animal exists or for that matter ever existed.

    With the thousands of game cameras placed everywhere throughout this country, with millions of photos taken, we haven’t gotten 1 clear picture of anything that resembles a bigfoot.

    While a picture maybe worth a thousand words, this will only continue debate , a body will be the only proof.

    Unfortunately for all , only liars, cheaters, and deceivers have ruled.

  2. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert and mystery_man: Thanks. When really thoughtful posters recognize your contributions on a blog, it can’t but make you feel good about being here.

    I do this strictly for fun; I don’t really have a dog in any of the fights here. But as someone who’s always been fascinated with the natural world, I want to know new things, and don’t like to see intriguing possibilities swept under the rug without due review. Cryptozoology is the best opportunity for really new things in biology, in my opinion; and so I like to see the debate being something people like mystery_man, a professional in the field, can feel proud to be part of. (And I’m glad you do, m_m.) I have been known to wield a brickbat on occasion. I see this as similar to what happens to Bigfooters who occasionally make verbal missteps out of sheer frustration. We should probably all, however, get less frustrated and more focused. I’m trying. (Sometimes very trying lol).

    M_m: you know, I’m not sure that Lyndon’s and my “disagreement” with you is really one at all. Scientific models are not the world; they are the way, however, that facilitates our understanding of it as we see it right now, and even more importantly, our explorations to find out more. For that reason, models can only be modified by new knowledge, not by any speculation, however intelligent and grounded that might be. Lyndon (speaking for him, but I think I can here) and I don’t have a problem with that. It’s tossing around borderline-libel accusations of fakery, and providing no backup for those accusations, that we have the problem with. Proponents must come up with proof. Anyone see skeptics doing it? But proponents must also challenge skeptical assertions that come with no handy backup; because it is part of the model of scientific research that when a positive assertion is made, evidence must be behind it. In fact, on this score, I believe that holding skeptical assertions to the fire of evidence can help engender the additional scientific interest required to bring resources to bear on the question. Because, remember, the skeptics aren’t arguing the nonexistence of something. They are arguing tha the mountain of evidence amounts to 100% false positives – an assertion that can be tested.

    Wherever the search goes, though, Cryptomundo is a grandstand seat, and I’m happy it’s here.

  3. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I also don’t think we really have a disagreement. Maybe a slightly different way of looking at things, but not a disagreement. I feel I tend to think that science in general is less of an enemy to cryptozoology than a lot of people here. Maybe that is because it is my profession, and I suppose it could explain why I can perhaps sometimes even seem dogmatic about science to some, but trust me, although I am skeptical (science is in general a skeptical thing), I am really very much the open minded variety. I too am fascinated with the natural world and learning new things about it, always have been. That is why I put everything up to the rigors of what I feel to be our most important tools for finding out new things; science. Science should really be a way of learning new things, not the enemy, or ammo against the believers or a side of the argument. I sure hope I don’t come across that way!

    I actually think I misunderstood what Lyndon was trying to say before. I suppose certain aspects of PG footage do require some back up, such as when personal smearing is done on a person’s reputation. I realize now that you were talking about accusations of fakery and that everything I said probably was not what Lyndon meant in the first place. Skeptics should take some responsibility when doing that, I suppose.

    Like I said before, I value science tremendously. It might seem like I am hard on the evidence sometimes, or that I am letting skeptics off the hook, but really all it is is that I want to see this field acting behaving in line with other scientific fields. Other scientists in this field are not asking skeptics to prove them wrong. They are going out and working hard to show why the evidence and why PG could be genuine (even though they are often ignored). I do not view this subject as a “belief”, I see it as a real scientific discipline based on evidence and for that reason I can be very hard on it, challenging assumptions and things like the PG footage. This is out of love for this field more than anything else.

  4. jerrywayne responds:

    Mystery Man

    Your comments are incisive and should be required reading, a primer of sorts for those interested in cyrptozoology. It is always good to have common sense rise to the occasion.

    However, I do have a bit of a disagreement with your approach. This disagreement involves the issue of innate plausibility. While we should always keep an open mind, sometimes there are issues that should be exposed as highly improbable. For instance, the notion that Georgia is the home of a breeding population of giant, bipedal gorillas or unknown monster apes that have gone unconfirmed for centuries is a highly, highly suspect notion (for many reasons), so much so as to be virtually dismissible out of hand. Yet, your comments (in my opinion at least) always have an open ended clause, such as “well, giant, breeding apes in Georgia may be unlikely, but we really can’t rule them out entirely”. I would suggest that it is not irrational to make a call on innate (im)plausibility, even if advocates wish to hang you for it in the nearest sour-apple tree.

    DWA,

    Some of your best posting, I think. I do agree with your assessment that bigfoot phenomenon deserves serious scientific scrutiny. However, I can’t help but think you wouldl be disappointed by the results of such an inquiry.

    AlbertaSasquatch

    Thanks for your comments. Let me explain myself. The only “muscle movement” that intrigues me in the Patterson film is the subject’s “calf muscle” which seems to contract in a way that one sees on humans with developed calf muscles. How to explain this? Well, its a sasquatch, powerfully built (that is one explanation). Here is an alternative explanation: the lower extremities of the film subject are panted in a rubber suit. Now, I have seen knee high rubber boots bend and contort when the wearer takes large steps. This is no doubt due to the fact that the knee highs have to bend at an angle when the foot strikes the ground (and is level with the ground). Cover the rubber boots or waders in fake or real hair, and have the subject step out in large steps and film the subject at a distance, and you might mimic natural calf movement.

    I only mention this scenario as an explanation for what one may see in the Patterson film to counter the (to me) intemperate advocate position that Patterson’s film subject CANNOT be a man in a costume.

  5. mystery_man responds:

    jerrywayne- Thank you for your compliment. Your point about innate implausibility is a very good one, and I would have to agree with you on that. I suppose I am loathe to close avenues of inquiry out of hand, but you are right, certain things are certainly much more far fetched than others based on what we know. I am an advocate of keeping things open (not “believing”, mind you, just keeping them open) but I do think you are right in that sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and face that a particular notion is beyond plausibility. These are the things that unless someone by some chance produced some solid evidence, they are almost not even worth looking at. The notion that PG could be real is not one of those things for me. I must say I agree with what you said about Georgia, good example.

  6. AlbertaSasquatch responds:

    Hi jerrywaye, thanks for the response and I definitely can see your point but I still don’t think there would be enough definition that it would look like muscle movement but I most certainly could be wrong.

  7. Lyndon responds:

    mystery-man,

    No problem, and thanks. As I said not sasquatch in general, but rather the Patterson footage in particular, places an equal burden on both the proponent who claims it is real and the scoftic who claims Patterson hoaxed it. That is a specific accusation aimed at Patterson and needs to be quantified and proven every bit as much as the ‘it’s a real bigfoot’ claim. For all we know, even if it was a hoax, Roger Patterson ‘might’ have had nothing to do with it. Highly unlikely of course but still????

    I have little problem with skeptics who might have the opinion the Patterson footage is not of a real sasquatch but who also don’t claim “so and so” was behind it or “such and such” was how it was hoaxed.

    With regards to sasquatch in general, I would say that most scientists do not go around claiming sasquatch does not exist or cannot exist. Some might do so but I seriously doubt that most do. Of course, the fact is that you are correct in that most scientists do not accept that there is such a creature but that is not the same as making strong claims that there isn’t. There are a surprising number who are open enough minded to consider the ‘possibility’, but yes the burden of ‘proving’ it is on those who claim there is such a creature rather than those who simply claim there is no proof to establish it as fact.

    Thanks again.

  8. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne: thanks for the compliment.

    I might take issue, however, with the idea of “innate [im]plausibility.” I don’t really believe that it’s applicable, actually, to most “paranormal” topics, let alone to hairy hominoids (which I view as a straight biological question, not paranormal).

    Trees and boulders walking around town, then returning to their places before we get up in the morning? I’d consider that farfetched. (For one thing, how come those of us active at night don’t see it?)

    Intelligent creatures from other planets visiting earth and even abducting a few of us for experimental purposes? Not farfetched at all, really. Nor are people moving things with their minds; ghosts; the Jersey Devil; the Loch Ness Monster; or crop circles being extraterrestrial in origin.

    I mean, I’d like to see the evidence that these things are happening, and I’m raising an eyebrow at you if you “believe in” ANYTHING for which you don’t have evidence. (Even God. Particularly God.) But I have an open mind on them. I can be convinced. IF you show me the evidence. (Ghosts? The internal psychological experience of the people who “see” them, sez here. But I’m open to being proven wrong.)

    The sasquatch and yeti are entirely plausible animals. The reports say so. Nothing unusual, particularly, about the appearance or behavior of the animals, at least in terms of what we know about animals in general, is described in the reports. That is, to me, plausible, by definition. The Almas, the orang pendek, relict Neandertals, you name it. Of course they are plausible. (Even in Georgia. Kansas. Or Iowa. All these states have a number of sighting records for sasquatch, particularly Georgia BTW, that square with reports elsewhere on all significant particulars.) All we have to do is look at the primates we know about (including those now considered extinct) to see that all of the alleged hairy hominoids are, really, pretty garden variety. They are not implausible because “no one sees them;” the reports, one can generally presume in any situation like this, are the tip of the iceberg. As John Bindernagel says: many more people are seeing these animals than we realize. It’s just that – for many quite understandable reasons – few report the sightings. (Bindernagel’s a wildlife biologist. Argue with him, not me. 😉 )

    My problem with calling any of them “implausible” is that that is a barrier to scientific inquiry; it’s something that brands anyone who tries to take the evidence seriously as a bit slightly off his rocker. That’s wrong; it’s actually a steel bar crippling science by whacking it across the knees. Scientists should not be halted by arbitrary barriers of implausibility. They should be able to say: implausible? Says who? And then, if they wish, make their case for research. They should not be constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering whether their jobs are safe or their research in jeopardy, because of what they think. Particularly when there is solid evidence supporting what they think.

    You know the strongest case, really, that I can make for the existence of hairy hominoids? The evidence continues to mount; converts and open-minded people still accrue to the field; and, um, Cryptomundo. Despite all the damage that has been done, much of it maybe unintentional, by those who can’t get their minds around it – some of whom, present company excepted, don’t want anyone else to either.

    Arbitrary – and oh it is – designations of implausibility are close kin to another odious concept: Political correctness. I HATE political correctness.

    But inherent implausibility is worse. It is, in fact, flat scary in its implications for true science. Look what it’s done to sasquatch research. Radford. Biscardi. I rest my case.

  9. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I don’t think jerrywayne means sasquatch or cryptids in general. I think he is talking about cases where it is extremely unlikely. Like a sasquatch being sighted in Hawaii, or the premise that a large lake monster lives in a man made lake that has been drained and refilled before. I think he’s talking about things like the innate implausibility that my computer is going to suddenly start levitating right now.

    I always keep possibilities open, but there is a certain point where something might be so far fetched, and with so little hard evidence, that it is almost not worth looking into at all. If a scientist had to look into every single possibility, every single lead, no matter how remote, without supporting evidence to suggest it is real, then we would take a very long time indeed to learn new things. Scientists simply cannot follow up on everything that people think COULD be out there. For them to do that would actually be more crippling to science than saying that a notion is so implausible that the way things are now, it is not worth the resources of pursuing. I also think that science is not helped by flat out assumptions, but there has to be a certain point where something has to be considered plausible enough to be researched or it is going to take a very long time to get to the bottom of any real knowledge to be found.

    Besides, you apply innate implausibility already. Some blobsquatch videos and photos are so fake seeming that they are really garbage, right? But we don’t know they are fake for a fact. Well, by your rationale that nothing should be implausible, we would have to seriously investigate every single blurry blobsquatch and give them all weight based on the idea that they MIGHT be a sasquatch. Do you think we should do that? Of course not. That is the concept of innate implausibility that I think jerrywayne is talking about. Science is the same way. I think it would be a serious drain on the pursuit of amazing knowledge and new real discoveries if we had to follow up on every single far out idea. I think in a way, putting serious consideration towards a highly unlikely, unsupported claim is a steel bar holding up science.

    Cryptids are not innately implausible nor is a lot of (not all) paranormal phenomena in my opinion. There are not a whole lot of things that I would say are outright impossible, I’m very open minded. However I do understand that there has to be criteria for something to be plausible enough to take the time and money of pursuing it and there are cases where following up on a completely unsubstantiated, outlandish theory is more of a detriment to science than not.

  10. mystery_man responds:

    On the other hand, the idea that the Earth moves around the sun or that bacteria and viruses cause diseases were at one point innately implausible too. But remember in the end, there was a reason to follow up on these ideas and it was evidence that finally brought them to our attention and caused them to be accepted at last. If scientists didn’t use the fact that plausible evidence pointed in that direction and based their research on that, we’d still be thinking that the sun revolves around the Earth or that blood letting is a sensible cure.

    I’ll look at anything for which good evidence points to, but there are definitely avenues of inquiry that I feel are more likely to produce results (Patty is real), than others (Patty was involved in a Bigfoot massacre). Do you see what I am saying?

    But yeah, there are a lot of things that are labeled as innately implausible that I don’t agree with either.

  11. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- One more quick thing as to how this applies to the PG footage (ah yeah, that’s what the thread started off as :) ). We are talking about the closing of avenues of inquiry and how dismissing a theory out of hand could be counterproductive to a scientific approach. You say that nothing should be considered implausible and that we should hold open the possibility of Patty as a real creature. I agree with the last part. But some proponents (and I am not saying you), will say that and at the same time completely refute the idea that it could be a suit on grounds that it is “highly implausible”. Sure there is a lot of evidence for Patty as real, but you said before that nothing.

    For some to say that we cannot close the avenue of inquiry that Patty is a real sasquatch, that these things should be considered and if not it is a barrier to discovery, and then in the same breath say that it is totally innately implausible that a suit could have been made or that these types of footage can be faked, is contradictory in the extreme. So there ARE apparently some things considered innately implausible by proponents, just nothing that contradicts their own theories or fits into their own conceptions about what things will be discovered. One simply cannot promote an idea of a completely open mind and objectivity without being able to at least consider theories opposite one’s own.

    Some people would use the guise of an open mind to scientific discovery to their own ends while doing the very same thing they are condemning, namely patly saying that some skeptical ideas are impossible. This is very scientifically backwards and detracts from the very open mindedness they are trying to promote. If one is to say that no theory should be branded innately implausible by science, then that follows that they also have to consider the skeptical ideas that they themselves brand as such. As a professional in science, I find this sort of attitude to be a negative influence on the credibility of cryptozoology. The skewed perception of objectivity displayed by some proponents to me is scary for true science.

    To me, in the end, it’s all about the evidence and finding the real truth. Some things obviously have more (or less) evidence than others. These are the things most worthy of following up on in my opinion compared to some others. So based on innate implausibility, sasquatch is less far fetched and more worthy of inquiry to me than, say, shapeshifting reptoids in the Oval Office. (although proponents of that theory will say the same thing that proponents of cryptids say, I’m sure.)

    Sorry, not such a quick thing. :)

  12. BigTruth responds:

    I believe there is a Bigfoot type creature out there.

    I believe I haven’t seen evidence that proves my belief.

    I believe a huge primate (as we know them) cannot live, breed and die, yet go undetected and undocumented (body or legit picture/video) in the lower 48 states.

    I believe the apes in the Congo are located in very dense
    lush vegetation living amongst a much less populas and backwards type people.

    I believe the apes of the Congo go undetected because of the sparseness of human population and thick rugged terrain along with stealth.

    Having said that….How do I justify my Belief?

    I believe the creature known as Bigfoot lives in a environment like the apes in the Congo, which can support a huge primate.

    I believe the only way a Bigfoot like creature can exist in the lower
    48 is that he must be a type of ALIEN with invisibility power(something like Predator) or some type of inter-dimensional parallel universe type being.

    I believe much more that the creature probably lives in an environment like the great apes rather then being Alien or Inter-dimensional/parallel universe
    type being.

    I believe somebody (knows little of Bigfoot) will prove Bigfoot proof positive sheerly by accident. Unlike the Georgia Hoaxers. OR by someone who’s overall all consuming obsession wills his way to discovering Bigfoot. Not someone in between.

    I believe a BigFoot exists somewhere in the World

  13. jerrywayne responds:

    I’m enjoying all the posts here. I meant to include kudos for Don’tCryBigfoot in my last post and forgot.

    I’m an agnostic when it comes to bigfoot, leaning seriously towards doubt. I can understand the bigfoot agnostic who leans toward belief (after all, there IS evidence in the form of tracks, sightings, etc.) I do take issue, however, with the absolutist in either skeptic or advocate camps. Hence, the person who says with certainty that bigfoot does not exist is dogmatic, in my view. Likewise, the person who is sure bigfoot is real is also dogmatic.

    To get back to Patterson’s film. Advocates look at the film subject and ponder: are we looking at giganto, or an evolved homo erectus, or a relic human, etc.? Such an approach takes the reality of the film subject as a given, for the purpose of argument. I would like to begin speculation from the other end of the controversy. I would like to begin with the proposition that the film is a hoax. What then, can we learn from the film? Why did Patterson give us this particular image? What may have he been thinking? Where did he get his ideas?

    First, we must remember that his film was made in 1967. The most publicized accounts of sasquatch/bigfoot at that time were the Roe, Ostman and Ruby Creek stories. These stories were publicised especially by Ivan Sanderson in “men’s entertainment” magazines.
    Patterson no doubt read about these accounts.

    1. The Patterson film is virtually a reenactment of the Roe account, down to a sasquatch with large female breasts, casual walking away, and a quick look back.

    2. A feature (I mentioned in a post above) suggests upturned bangs (in some renderings), a feature of Ostman’s bigfoot.

    3. The bulky looking region where the head and upper back meet, perhaps bunched muscles, seems to visually copy to a degree the True Magazine imaginative illustration of Sanderson’s article of the Roe account rather than Roe’s supervised sketch. Also, Patterson’s film subject has a stooped walk, also more in line with the artist’s interpretation in the magazine, rather than Roe’s sketch which shows an upright sasquatch.

    Also, the bunched hair/muscles on the upper back and near the neck could help obscure the turn of the head, which otherwise might reveal a human neck or a phony looking slack and fold of a costume.

    4. The famous crested head of Patterson’s subject is not exactly like either sketches made by Roe or Ostman. I suggest this feature is a by-product of a gorilla suit modified and used to make the film. The much (here) ridiculed Long book has a photo of the Morris mass-produced gorilla suit and to me the similarity between the top of the crested head on the film subject and the same on the gorilla suit are remarkable.

    5. The bulk of the costume? (Remember, for the sake of argument, we are assuming Patterson’s subject IS a man in a costume.) I think Patterson necessarily had to have a bulky sasquatch (at odds with the more slender Roe and Ostman sasquatches). He realized that a trimmer costume would look fake. He would be right: we all remember the Ivan Marx phony looking sasquatch, comparative skinny as it was.
    Also, Patterson’s sasquatch looked a lot like some renderings of the yeti, and perhaps he thought this was passable. (After all, wasn’t sasquatch “America’s Abominable Snowman”?)

    6. The location of the film also tells us something.
    A washed out creek bottom would be an easier and more advantageous place to leave (plant) tracks (to confirm the film) than other places (like a floor of pine needles).

    7. The admixture of various traits found in the Patterson subject has puzzled some. The saggital crest of a gorilla, the pendulous breasts of a female human primate, the long striding legs of a human, the hair covered body, the humanlike feet and apelike long arms, the feet padded like a bear’s, etc. have caused serious doubt in some folks mind as to the reality of this subject as a true zoological reality. So, why did Patterson flub it? He didn’t know any better.

    8. The subject has silver tipped hair (according to Patterson). This is either because some eyewitness accounts included this description, or else it was a nice touch and a way to make it seem like a real, familiar primate. (Lowland gorilla anyone?)

    And 9. Patterson’s subject has a butt, a big butt. Why? Certainly we don’t see that feature in the Roe sketch. Perhaps this addition was built into the gorilla suit and couldn’t be eliminated, or else it was an add on to disguise the human in the suit a bit more.

    The above is admitted conjecture. It is simply an attempt to deconstruct Patterson’s film by taking as a starting point the idea the film is a hoax.

  14. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: once again I don’t think we are really disagreeing. This gets annoying sometimes. 😀

    I don’t consider any sasquatch fake “implausible” as the real thing. I just don’t consider something that appears, on its face, to be a staged event with a person in a suit is a good bet as the real thing is all. I base this on lots of reports of an animal that, although it looks reminiscent in some ways of a human, is quite clearly, to the observer, not one. “Poor bet, in my opinion, given other possibilities” is quite different from “implausible.”

    And a fake, even of P/G, is in no way “implausible.” It’s just that, considering what it would have entailed, I consider it a “poor bet, in my opinion, given other possibilities” including which is an animal for which there are many reports of something similar to what is in P/G.

    Were there no cases of anyone else seeing anything else even remotely like what is in that film, then all of a sudden a fake of P/G becomes, to me, a much better bet. It’s just that, given what I know, it’s really much simpler to accept P/G as an uncatalogued animal than as a fake.

    Although proof would be better, and I’m still waiting for that.

  15. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- It is annoying, isn’t it? :) Seriously, I always enjoy these conversations with you whether we disagree or not. I think you have so many good things to say and you are insightful and knowledgeable. I really think we mostly see eye to eye on many things, and even when we don’t I have to say there are many things you’ve made me pause and think about. I’ll sometimes say “Hmmm, I never really thought about it that way before.” That’s a good thing. I think we have been having a good exchange of ideas going in this thread. Thanks for an engaging discussion, as usual! I also have to thank the others who have been taking the time to put in their two cents here. These kind of civil, thought provoking exchanges are why Cryptomundo is the best.

  16. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    Not to go totally to town on everything in your post; we have gone this way before. :-)

    But a legitimate alternative to what you did there is to presume that Roe saw a real animal; that Patterson’s drawn reconstructions were based on reports of that animal and other animals of the same or closely related species; that the sasquatch is an animal that combines traits in a peculiar way, as any other species does (some female gorillas do have sagittal crests, as that seems based on size and not sex); and that he and Gimlin simply saw the same animal others had, as one would expect them to do when they went out and looked for it.

    Oh. I saw my sasquatch tracks on a bed of pine needles. High Siskiyou, Northern CA, 1986. I really have to tone my wife down when this comes up. She doesn’t hedge at all; it’s a sasquatch. 😉

  17. Randyman responds:

    All right now, boys. Quit yer fightin’ already.

    And once you’ve calmed down, get to the library and do some real research! No sense arguing about the P/G film if you haven’t done yer homework. Round here we call that ‘ignorance’.

    Go read Meldrum, Green, Coleman, Krantz, Murphy, Powell et al for hard scientific evidence. See the DVD evidence for yourself. Then you can agree or not. But don’t be ign-o-rant about it.

    The 1967 P/G film remains the best film evidence we have of a large bipedal non-human primate living in the wilds of North America. This is why Loren and BFers keep posting it – to remind us and the scientific community to look again. Other than the Zapruder film, no other film footage in recent times has had such thorough analysis and scrutiny. The film has never been adequately debunked as a fraud. Those who claimed to have hoaxed it (RIP) failed to produce any evidence, let alone a costume – yet people believe them. I believe Jane Goodall, Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz and the scientists who have actually done the hard work here.

    Even the peculiar gait and pelvic movement of Patty has been computer-plotted and analyzed, and found to be consistent with other sightings and footprints: long 3 to 4′ strides, single-file footprints, not side-to-side like ours. A human being simply cannot move, walk and turn as Patty does (yes, it’s been tried). Then there’s that mid-tarsal ridge and the longitudinal dermal ridges (like fingerprints) found in many footprint casts. Plenty of evidence if you want it.

    Now then… watching the film again, I had a new thought related to Sasquatch behavior and sightings: what if Patty, walking away so nonchalant, wasn’t the real show that day up on Bluff Creek? What if there was other Sasquatch activity going on there before Patterson & Gimlin literally stumbled upon her? What if Patty was only a diversion? The two horsemen come around the bend and, along with their horses, react somewhat loudly to a large hairy thing at creekside. Horses buck, guns and camera come out…

    Watch the entire P/G film from start to finish. Patty, startled, first heads away into the closest forest cover, then turns and heads right, along the creek, leading Patterson & Gimlin’s camera along with her. She does take her sweet time about it, almost as if to say, “Over here – follow me”… Why?

    These aren’t lone wolves here, they’re intelligent primates and likely foraging in groups. Many sightings mention more than one Sasquatch in the field. And like many sentient critters, they often move in a formation: one in the lead, 2 or 3 on the sides or behind. Watching the ‘Jungles’ episode from the excellent BBC ‘Planet Earth’ series, I noticed other large primates doing this. In the Congo sequence, as a troop of chimpanzees prepare to wage an attack on a neighboring tribe, they move single file as 1 or 2 chimps hover out on the sides. Many animals do this classic protective field formation, especially when foraging/hunting. Those raptors did it in ‘Jurassic Park’. There’s a military term for it, yes?

    Ask yourself this: why would a solitary female be out foraging down at the creek all by her lonesome? Why would we find a lone creature in such an open, vulnerable space in daylight? Why the almost-casual stroll away? And what was really going on above and behind Patterson & Gimlin that day? Others have searched for images of other BFs in the woods above Patty – methinks there’s something more here than meets the eye (or camera). Maybe those horses were on to something… something bigger than Patty.

    Consider the mental state and fatigue of Patterson & Gimlin late in the day. They’re out all day, looking for Sasquatch footprints to film on 16mm. They’re probably not looking for an encounter (but brought rifles), and they’re tired from riding all day with few results. Late in the afternoon, they come around a bend and their horses go wild with fear. They see something incredible. One rider gets thrown, stumbles, grabs the camera and starts filming. The other rider holds onto the horses and his gun. In their panicked, disoriented state, how aware can they be of other activity in their surroundings? It’s all they can do to keep the horses and film what they can. The camera follows Patty up a canyon until the film runs out – !? If you were gonna pull a hoax, you’d make damn sure you had plenty of film. More footage = more bucks.

    I’m thinking Patty was out with her clan getting fish and foraging along the creek. Local logging and truck noise had frightened or displaced them, so here they were at Bluff Creek in broad daylight. Maybe Patty was caught by surprise. If there was young ‘uns about, the others could have hustled them away while Patty created a diversion, only to rendezvous later up the canyon. Or – Patty and a young ‘un were at the creek when they were surprised, they scattered, and Patty strolled on into history.

    One reason the film looks weird or fake is that we have no point of reference. We don’t know of any other true bipedal primates besides ourselves, so what is that? Many well-armed witnesses have said they couldn’t shoot what they saw because it ‘looked too human’ – heck, most folks wouldn’t shoot a chimpanzee either. Local tribes often thought of Sasquatch as simply a hairy tribe off in the woods, albeit smelly, scary and one to be avoided. If this looks like a human in a suit to you, congratulations – you’ve just recognized another hairier member of our primate family. The fact that it looks almost human is the very thing that warrants more investigation.

    I propose that Sasquatch is a highly-developed, intelligent, strong, bipedal primate, surviving in the wilds and clever enough to hide from humans. They have howls, calls and maybe a language, they throw tantrums, use rudimentary tools, are communal, live in hidden shelters and are opportunistic omnivores like us. They may use their putrid scent as identifying markers, much like blind mole rats and rodents will roll in a ‘midden’ pile composed of their own urine and droppings in order to mark their own clan. They breast-feed and care for their young, and they bury their dead (as do some apes), which is why we don’t find ‘dead Bigfoots’ just lying around… freezer or not!

    No solid evidence in the Patterson & Gimlin film? I’ve seen this film my whole life, yet only lately realized that the figure in the film was a female. I always just saw the primate aspect of it. Why would a couple of NorCal cowboys in 1967 bother to build a female Sasquatch costume, make such a lousy, wobbly film and then run out of film? You’d think these boys would have at least given Patty some giant hooters for their trouble! Even the FAKE ‘Alien Autopsy’ video had production values.

    Then there’s the stocky, muscular body, the sagittal crest with fur extending down her back, that ape-like rump, those long arms, and non-opposable thumbs on big hands. The long face, pointed head, low jaw and lack of a neck is consistent with other sightings, too – even the Yeti’s. If you watch films of mountain gorillas, they turn their heads with the torso exactly the same, as their jaw nearly rests on their chest. Even a human contortionist can’t do this.

    Anytime someone makes a hoax video or TV commercial using a Bigfoot costume, they always overdo it to a ridiculous degree. Even the most serious Sasquatch horror flick is over the top creature-wise. In poker it’s called a ‘tell’. Too obvious = fake. Yet here we have just a large hairy ape, walking upright, swinging its arms and turning its torso to stare back at us.

    It’s too simple. It’s less a monster than a possibility. Bipedal ape? Why not?

    I think the Patterson & Gimlin film stands the test of time, and is among our best evidence for Sasquatch to date. But it’s just the tip of the iceberg, as evidence goes. Do yer research!

  18. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    Thanks for sparing me, if just this one time. [Smile].

    Remember, though, my conjecture is based on a starting point: it is a hoax. If we look at it from that angle, then certain things fall into place as to how to understand the image Patterson presented. If you take a different starting point, my approach is less explanatory.

    I did forget to mention that I think Patterson honesty believed that the Roe and Ostman accounts were true. If a hoax, he made his film to reflect Roe and Ostman’s animal, as close as the modified suit would allow.

  19. mystery_man responds:

    Randyman- I HAVE done my homework on this. So have a lot of the other posters here. My posts still stand. Go back and reread them if you like. I don’t believe at any point did I or anyone else here dismiss the PG footage as a definite hoax out of hand. But I am objective about it and I do value a scientific approach. I think “ignorance” is a pretty strong word to direct at those who have been posting here and I don’t particularly appreciate being told that I have no idea of what I am talking about. All of us have avidly studied this phenomenon for quite some time. I have watched this footage countless times. We all know what aspects and parts of the film might be genuine and have discussed this time and time again on this forum. You make very good observations on the footage, but I really do not think you are respecting some of the other ideas being thrown out here, and are dismissing them for your apparent absolute certainty that Patty is real. If a skeptic did that, it would be considered “close minded” around these parts.

    I guess any biologist who wants to get to the bottom of the truth without making too many assumptions must be “ignorant” for not completely and enthusiastically embracing this new species based on the PG footage? Please.

  20. mystery_man responds:

    Just another question for Randyman.

    Speaking of doing one’s research, have you ever read up on any skeptical approaches done towards the film, or is it only material that fits into your own notion of what Patty should be? Have you researched anything that could perhaps disagree with your own assumptions? By “do yer research”, do you mean only that which advocates the film as genuine? You’ve obviously become familiar with scientists who think Patty is real, but have you read any research by equally qualified scientists who disagree? Have you considered their ideas or written them off out of hand? If so, how can you claim to be in a position of open mindedness or make accusations of ignorance? I’m pretty sure that studying up on only one side of the equation is not the best way to get to the bottom of the truth. I’d say do your homework all around to get a feel for the whole picture.

    Anyway, you are right, the PG footage IS one of the best pieces of evidence. Nobody has been really saying that it isn’t. There are many things that point to it as being real, including all of the good observations that you brought up. I do not dispute that at all. But I am not completely convinced to the point of accepting it as a holotype by which all other research should rely upon. I’d say to you keep open some scientific objectivity with regards to the footage. There is a chance it is real, but if it is not, all assumptions based on it will be falsified.

  21. DWA responds:

    Randyman: most of what you say is why I think we’re all here.

    But I’m still a skeptic on this question.

    I consider the existence of the sasquatch and the yeti, and maybe a couple of other hairy hominoids as well, not only plausible but very possible, I might almost say likely (although that’s a subjective assessment, with no percentage behind it). But I can understand an irrational response to the film. I can understand people whose faith in scientific coverage of the planet is such that they could actually put a guy in that suit rather than just accept that we might need to search here for something that’s evaded the net – maybe as much through our own unwillingness to accept it as possible, and cast the net in that direction, as through its own evasiveness.

    Personally, I don’t think we need to postulate anything but the one animal that is on that film. Patty’s behavior has been seen many times, by many people encountering what appeared to be lone animals. Skeptics think it needs to be rationalized; it does not. In fact it falls squarely in the center of expected behavior for lots of animals we know about. I personally don’t think that that sasquatch is a social animal at all; if it mirrors another primate’s behavior in that regard, I’d go with the orangutan before, say, the chimpanzee. I’d say that our chances of getting scientific confirmation of a social critter that big would be very high; if the sas exists, I think its solitary nature has helped it elude us.

    But of course I don’t know, nor do any of us, yet.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|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.