Sasquatch Coffee


Back to the Future: October 20, 1967

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 25th, 2008

Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967.

Loren Coleman – has written 5491 posts on this site.
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. 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.


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

  1. hudgeliberal responds:

    That,my friends,is the REAL sasquatch. Amazing footage that I never tire of watching. Ah,the good ole days. Now lets get back to real “squatchin” and leave all the attention seekers to their gullible fans.

  2. Harlequin responds:

    Often imitated, but never duplicated… sometimes it’s important to remember the advances and the good moments of ‘the hunt’, so to speak, especially in the aftermath of the whole Georgia thing.

  3. DWA responds:

    Anyone who thinks this is fake and proven so:

    1) Read up.

    2) Look at the fakes and see how they all look basically alike…and all very different from this.

    We are no closer to resolving this one now than we were the day it went public. It would be simple to get there. But until this is regarded, by the bulk of scientists, as a scientific question, we won’t.

  4. AlienBigCats responds:

    i can not tell if it is fake or real.

  5. wdsasquatch responds:

    Great video.
    No way thats a man in a monkey suit.
    BIGFOOT IS REAL!!!!!!!!!!

  6. timi_hendrix responds:

    I also never get tired of this.
    I believe this is a real Sasquatch.
    It moves like a human I don’t think a suit could move like this.

  7. DontCryBigfoot responds:

    For those who believe Patty is “the real deal”, what points of analysis do you base this assumption on? Because many of the arguments I’ve seen which suggest Patty is a fake seem pretty strong to me.

    1) The Achilles tendon doesn’t connect with the heel of the foot, which simply does not fit with the anatomy of any known species of primate, and I might even venture to say any known species of animal.

    2) The “muscle tone” and “muscle definition” which some say would not be possible with a costume could just as easily be padding under the costume.

    3) The “wounded leg” looks more like padding inside the costume that has become unsecured.

    4) The “gait” which some say “cannot be reproduced by a human” looks remarkably similar to the overly confident stride of a teenage African American male (trying very hard not to cross into any racial territory or offend anyone with this statement, but I’m just reporting what I’ve personally seen, if Loren feels this statement might be crossing the line, he’s more than free to remove it, I would most certainly understand).

    5) The casual non-concerned walk almost seems as if Patty WANTS to be filmed, now it should stand to reason that if Bigfoot were really so unconcerned with human presence, that we’d have enough patty-quality footage to fill a video-rental store to the roof by now. But we don’t, most Bigfoot footage or photographs are of the grainy “blobsquatch” variety, and those which are a bit better quality have largely proven to be fakes.

    6) The bottom line is it’s a VIDEO, and a VERY good one I might add, one that has stood the test of time, and for the most part would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove unless we were somehow able to find the actual animal or the actual costume which appears in the video, so at BEST Patty should go down as “unexplained”, but in my opinion, those who so easily come to the assumption that Patty is “the real deal” without any conclusive evidence are doing the field of cryptozoological research alot more harm than good, we should be willing to apply the same skeptical approach to Patty that we so easily apply some of the more obvious “fake” evidence. Failure to treat all evidence consistently and in the same manor will most likely yield another situation such as the Georgia fiasco in the very near future.

  8. Gary the Cat responds:

    My main problem with this footage and the assumption of this ape being a female is that nearly all female primates have extended (sometimes grossly so) buttock/genital areas whereas this simply shows a hairy butt.

    Surely would get a bit claggy when she poops in the woods?

  9. swnoel responds:

    I won’t be fooled again… until we see, an inspected by a third party for real blood, skin, and bone body(one were Biscardi isn’t mentioned in the same sentance , there is no bigfoot!

    Certainly I’ll be entertained… but I won’t believe!

  10. westphalia responds:

    I’ve always been bothered by the rather neat dividing line between the subject’s top and bottom halves. It’s also hard for me to imagine any non-human primate walking so well bipedally, but I guess that’s what a criptoid is all about.

    The musculature looks really good to me – a distinct deltoid and tricep, and a chest muscle activated when the subject turns to look at the camera, and its right arm swings back.

    Is anyone bothered by the apparent closure of the thumb against the fingers?

    What a piece of footage. I can never get enough of it.

  11. Ebentz responds:

    I’ve always wondered why Bigfoots never react when they look at the camera(freeman and patterson). I would think such an elusive animal would make haste after spotting humans. because the film quality is so bad, we will never know the truth. but we do know that Patterson was a not the greatest guy in the world, kinda reminds me of tom biscardi.

  12. PhotoExpert responds:

    Gary the Cat-I hear what you are saying. And you make a good argument.

    But then again, you are assuming that Patty is a primate. Since scientists have not classified BF, we can not assume that Patty is a primate. Hence, the difference! We can not assume what Patty is. You did and that makes your argument based in assumption.

    The only sexual anatomy I did see were the breasts. And they were consistent with what we know about primates and humans. The video evidence was unclear as far as sexual genitalia is concerned. So we can neither confirm or deny what you are saying, even if we go with your assumption.

    DontCryBigfoot-You make some good points. I commend your objectivity! Seriously, that type of independent thinking is how the BF analysis should be approached. You are like several individuals here. You are not in the believer camp and you are not in the nonbeliever camp. You remain skeptically objective. That is an asset for both camps. Believers won’t get fooled by hoaxes. And nonbelievers will be unable to say that every BF video is a hoax. Your arguments require independent thought.

    You said, …”many of the arguments I’ve seen which suggest Patty is a fake seem pretty strong to me”. The reverse is also true. One could also say that the arguments for Patty being real, seem pretty strong as well.

    In fairness, and keeping with objectivity, I think you may have glossed over some of the evidence.

    In point 1, I would agree that the film does not give enough detail to be conclusive. It is inconclusive to a point.

    Under point number 2, you refer to muscle tone as possibly being padding under the costume. Yes, it could possibly be. But if it was a costume, made in the ’60s, why hasn’t anyone been able to produce a costume today that is half as good as that, with all the technology at our disposal? Also, if you were to do some investigating and reading, there are arguments for actual muscle and not padding under the costume. You will have to do some searches, but there was analysis done on the contraction of the quadracep muscles in the video. That would not be any type of padding contracting.

    In point 3, you speak of the wounded leg. I have never bought into the BF massacre theory, but if you are referring to a herniated muscle as the “wounded leg”, then you must be objective. Keeping with objectivity, it could be padding as you state or it could equally be herniated muscle. That argument would hold just as much water as your argument. And if it were padding, why didn’t the problem occur bilaterally? Why not in both legs. Which would give greater argument as to why it is a herniated muscle. That would be statiscally correct.

    In point 4, you talk about the “gait”. I think here is where I must disagree with you. It does resemble the stride of some overly confident teenagers I have seen, of all colors! So that may have been a bit biased on your part. However, people have tried to imitate the gate and none have really come close. And how many teenagers do you know personally that are over 7 feet tall and have any kind of a BF costume? I don’t know any teenagers over 7 feet tall. And if I did, I am sure none of them would have a somewhat believable BF costume. Now let’s go back 40 years. How many teenagers over 7 feet in height, had a BF costume and would be able to duplicate the gait, with any believability? Statistically, the probability is not that high. So we have to consider other probabilities.

    In point 5, you say that it seems like Patty wants to be filmed. Usually when people want to be filmed or have their photo taken, they will stand there and not move. Or they will walk towards you or move to an open spot. What I see here, and correct me if I am wrong, is a creature that was moving further into the woods. I would say that would be a creature that is not intimidated but certainly wants to keep it’s eye on the two witnesses, to make certain they pose no danger to her. That is common sense and a behavior of animals that we see in the wild. They are not necessarily afraid of humans, as far as posing a threat to them, but they are “cautious” and move on. Black bears do the same thing. You are correct, it does look as if Patty in nonconcerned. But you are putting you perceptions and personal feelings and attributing them to natural behavior of the subject. So your argument there is incorrect. You can’t even do that with another human being. My feelings are different than your feelings. What you may do or how you may react in a certain situation is not how I may react in a certain situation. You are applying “your perceptions” to other people’s or animal’s behavior. That’s a no-no in being objective! You are now being subjective when applying your perceptions to behavior. Also, the point about having hundreds of clear photos and video is dead wrong! I can tell you as a professional in the field, that even under ideal circumstances when planning to take a photo, that there are environmental factors and technical issues that do not always produce good results. This happens even with professionals who are prepared with top of the line equipment. Most people who happen to be in the woods are not professional photographers. So that takes the chances of getting a clear shot to a small probability. Then if you take into account, they do not have the best equipment, that further lessens the probability of anyone getting a decent shot. Then you have to factor in poor or low level light conditions in the woods and that further diminishes the probability of an acceptable photo. And if you take into account human emotion when seeing a BF, that is an element of surprise or shock. I don’t even know how half the people would be able to think clearly in that circumstance and even remember the camera. I surprised there are any shots at all of BF. That is why most are blurry. The rest that are blurry, are intentional hoaxes as you claim. I think there are too many photos too showing blobsquatches. That is why I know many are faked intentionally. Because probability and statistics, given the reasons stated above, there should be only a handful of blobsquatch photos. Even if I was on a BF expedition, prepared with my professional equipment and knowledge, my expertise of the wilderness, ready to get a shot, I may also get a photo that is less than acceptable. Why? Lighting conditions change. I do not know where the BF would be located. I do not know how I would react to seeing one even though I am mentally prepared to see one. There are technical limitations as well, shutter speed, aperature, depth of field, ISO compatibility with shutter speed given the light conditions, etc. Your argument there is not valid in my opinion. I just gave you the other side of the coin or argument that you have not considered.

    In point number 6, I totally agree with you! Well said!

    Now, you had asked about arguments as to why people think the Patty video evidence is real. I just gave you some. And there are more. Jane Goodall believes that BF or a North American primate exists. That would be expert testimony. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, could go over in detail as to why BF exists with his dermal ridges evidence. You can not discount the “eyewitness” testimony from police officers, psychologists, biologists, and other numerous credible people that have had BF encounters. There was no misidentification of bears. They described encounters with BF. They were eyewitnesses and very credible at that! There are hundreds of reports. Some we can discard as scams. Some we can discard as the eyewitness being hoaxed. Some we can discard as people seeking attention or having mental disorders. Some we can discard as misidentifications of known animals. But we can not discard them all. Some stand up and are extremely credible! You can not disprove or discount them. You did by not considering that evidence. Also, one thing that you did not point out, that many primatologists and biologists have pointed out, is that when Patty turns to look at Patterson and Gimlin, there is a clue that is consistent with big primates. You are at your computer right now looking at the screen, correct? I want you to look to your left and then look back at the screen. Now, think back, you just turned your head and only your head, didn’t you? Well, Patty turns her whole right shoulder and her head. Most big primates do that but we humans do not. So if someone were trying to fake a BF video, I can understand them trying to simulate a different type of gait. What they probably would never think out is how to turn their head to the camera like a big primate. Patty did just that. A natural behavior that a human would not think of when perpetrating a hoax. Patty did just what a gorilla would do. That was natural and observed objectively on film. Later it was explained by primatologists and biologists. An ordinary person would not know about that, especially 40 years ago!

    So my suggestion to you is to remain skeptical. But to do some more reading and investigating. You might be in the believer camp after studying some more, considering all the factual possibilities and statistical probablilities of why the footage may show a real BF.

    I would say, given all the evidence to date, that the existence of BF is not only possible, but in fact it is probable. At least most of the experts think so. If you ask Bob Gimlin, he would tell you BF exists.

  13. Lyndon responds:

    Don’tCryBigfoot,

    It’s the ‘real deal’.

    The short hair, clearly defined body shape, extra long freely moving arms, long trunk, massive chest and waist, thick powerful looking legs, jawline that is considerably below the shoulder line despite the head not being overly large, fluid and seemingly natural locomotion in spite of the bent kneed gait etc etc that we in the Patterson/Gimlin subject have NEVER been evident in any bigfoot or bipedal ape suit thus produced.

    It’s totally unique as a filmed subject, and that includes the plethora of bigfoot films, documentaries, commercials and hoaxes that have surfaced these last 4 decades.

  14. gavinf responds:

    What I love about this video is the simplicity of it. The simple, calm reaction of “Patty” to Mr Patterson and Mr Gimlin resonates with me as genuine.

    I would not expect a creature that is undoubtedly near or at the top of the food chain to immediately flee upon seeing a human being. Her lack of concern may also be attributed to the horses the men were riding.

    I don’t really see the way she walks as strutting, or the walk of an overconfident person. It seems to me she lumbers.

    Also, everything about her movement and body language makes me think of a heavy, massive body. Not a person pretending to be a massive creature.

    Just my thoughts.

  15. BigTruth responds:

    Hello,

    I believe Bigfoot actually Exists. But the bigfoot in the patterson video
    seems to not be the real Mccoy.

    I welcome any comments.

  16. Shane Durgee responds:

    To get my head away from the bunk, I was reading up on the skookum cast again. Pretty impressive.

  17. Crypto-Enthused responds:

    I could watch this footage over and over. I’m kind of new to this site, I only started visiting a few weeks ago when the whole hoax broke in the news. I have been a long time enthusiast and will continue to seek proof. I think we need to look at any so called “proof of existence” with a very critical eye. The patty footage has yet to be fully debunked in 40 years of existence. The debate continues until there is a body on a slab or a creature in a cage. The truth is out there and we will eventually find it as we as a species keep encroaching on every other living species habitats. I look forward to the debate and the search for “proof of existence”. I will be a frequent visitor to this site from now on:)

  18. gridbug responds:

    I remember an X-Files episode where, toward the end, we find a sleepy Fox Mulder alone stretched out on a motel bed late at night in his t-shirt and pants watching TV. We can’t see what he’s watching at first, and he’d made allusions earlier to “adult entertainment” but when the camera tracks around to show the TV screen we see that he’s actually watching the Patterson/Gimlin footage.

    Superb. :)

  19. AlbertaSasquatch responds:

    Don’tCryBigfoot…I was just wondering where you got your “fact” that Patty’s achilles tendon isn’t attached to her heel as I have never heard this “fact” before.

  20. wdsasquatch responds:

    Great explanation PhotoExpert.
    There is no way its a hoax… its the real deal.

  21. mrmiloboy responds:

    All I know is that when I ask my mother-in-law about this whole bigfoot thing with regards to Patterson-Gimlen all she says is that they did not seem like the type of boys that would lie and perpetuate a hoax like this. She had them both as students when she lived in Yakima and knew them fairly well as students.

  22. Dragonheart responds:

    Wow. Over the years I looked at this piece of footage again, and again, and again, but every time I watch it, I’m blown away. Look at the neck, look how it turns his head!

    If this is indeed a suit, the one who created it was unbelievable talented. We are talking about the sixtees, a decade in which movie costumes looked fairly cheap compared to this incredible real looking creature.

    If there is a “creator”, he had to be far more talented than any Stan Winston on this planet… In the sixtees. No way, this is a real, living creature.

  23. DontCryBigfoot responds:

    Look at the footage for yourself. The heel of the foot protrudes far beyond where it should connect to the achilles tendon.

    And again, no point arguing with all the “true believers” out there, see you in the next hoax folks, as it seems you’re far too easily convinced something is real simply from a photo or a video. PT Biscardi is looking forward to your future patronage.

    PhotoExpert is at least willing to view the evidence objectively, though he leans more towards the footage being genuine. At least he’s willing to entertain the idea that it may be a fake.

  24. Tarajunki responds:

    Wait, I don’t get it. I got a a bit out of the loop for a few years but didn’t a few people (recently?) come forward and admit hoaxing this footage? I know, I know, I am sure a lot of individuals would love to lay claim to this classic footage but I thought it was concluded in the Bigfoot world that these guys no doubt had masterminded and pulled off the biggest mystery all these years. All the facts seemed to be there including the professional costume maker who supposedly created the film’s famous bigfoot.
    Honestly I was heartbroken when I read all I did about the admission from these people about this Bluff Creek footage. I too have always been fascinated by this footage.

  25. PhotoExpert responds:

    Thank you wdsasquatch! I always try to give the other side of an argument, when none is presented. I think I made some very valid points that were not mentioned by the poster. And they did ask why? LOL So I answered them.

  26. Lyndon responds:

    Don’tCryBigfoot… I was just wondering where you got your “fact” that Patty’s achilles tendon isn’t attached to her heel as I have never heard this “fact” before.AlbertaSasquatch

    He pulled it from out of his imagination. The simple ‘fact’ is that the clarity is just not there to establish this as ‘fact’…but that has never bothered the scoftics in claiming such ‘facts’.

    All that is evident is that the subject displays a more extended heel than a human does. This reason for this has been reasonably well deduced and explained by Krantz and Meldrum. It actually makes sound biological sense.

  27. DontCryBigfoot responds:

    Lyndon, it’s funny that you state
    “The simple ‘fact’ is that the clarity is just not there to establish this as ‘fact’…”.

    Yet appearently there’s enough “clarity” for you to state “Don’tCryBigfoot, It’s the ‘real deal’.” in an earlier post.

    “All that is evident is that the subject displays a more extended heel than a human does.”

    Wait… I thought you said “the clarity is not there”????

    “This reason for this has been reasonably well deduced and explained by Krantz and Meldrum. It actually makes sound biological sense.”

    Of course it makes “sound biological sense”….. it gets cold up in them thar mountains, and Patty was wearing her favorite pair of bigfoot bunny slippers to keep her little tootsies warm!! :P

    You know what, you just go right ahead believing what you believe based on nothing more than a 40 year old 10 second piece of video footage…. your beliefs are safe for now, as we’ll never likely find the costume, or the animal which supposedly appeared in the video……and that whole Georgia thing is such an obvious conspiracy… THAT THING IS REAL, it doesn’t matter that they said it’s a fake, they’re just covering up the ‘truth’….MORE LIES!!!! If it really was a hoax then they should be able to show the “costume” to ALL of us Personally…. We should be able to “touch, prod, and feel” for ourselves. :P

  28. Lyndon responds:

    Don’tCryBigfoot,

    You, sir, are the typical example of scoftic out to play games. Of course the clarity is there to see that the heel is somewhat elongated more than a human foot, but the clarity is not there to establish how it does or does not connect with the achilles tendon. In the same way, the clarity is there to establish that the arms are considerably longer than those of a human, but the clarity isn’t there to establish what kind of rings Patty has on her fingers.

    Get it?

    “”Of course it makes “sound biological sense”….. it gets cold up in them thar mountains, and Patty was wearing her favorite pair of bigfoot bunny slippers to keep her little tootsies warm!!”"

    Is that is? Is that all you can come up with as a retort? You’d be well at home on the JREF Forums with all the other comedians and peanut gallery luvvies.

    “”You know what, you just go right ahead believing what you believe based on nothing more than a 40 year old 10 second piece of video footage….”"

    It’s not 10 seconds long and it’s not ‘video’ footage. Honestly, can’t you even get the basic facts right?

    By the way, the reason I accept these animals exist does not solely rest with the Patterson/Gimlin footage. Far from it.

    Lastly, this it a CRYPTOZOOLOGY website which heavily deals with the subject of bigfoot and always has done. I really do think that websites like this are probably not the sort of places you should be visiting if you don’t want to get irked by ‘believers’ of sasquatch in general, or ‘believers’ in the authenticity of the Patterson/Gimlin footage in particular.

  29. DWA responds:

    “You know what, you just go right ahead believing what you believe based on nothing more than a 40 year old 10 second piece of video footage…”

    If someone could come here with a ‘skeptical’ viewpoint backed by information, it might truly be interesting.

    Unfortunately, I’ve never seen it.

    Truth is, most serious squatchers wish, frequently, that P/G never happened. It’s a grain of sand on a beach of evidence, to which the totally irrational response on the part of mainstream science did no justice.

    Problem is, no serious skeptic would ever confuse “evidence” and “proof.”

    But most coming on here (or trust me on JREF) can’t seem to get the distinction straight.

    Nobody’s getting a body dumped in their laps unless evidence – as distinct from proof – is followed up to a conclusion.

    And there is tons to follow up. P/G not necessary. At all.

    Class dismissed.

    (BTW: clarity or no, no explanation of the sasquatch gait or build puts the Achilles’ tendon anywhere other than where it belongs. Lyndon’s right. But if you haven’t read up you don’t know that.)

  30. DontCryBigfoot responds:

    You, sir, are the typical example of scoftic out to play games.

    And you sir are the typical example of the “true believer” who accepts every piece of evidence as “100% beyond the shadow of a doubt real” simply because it has yet to be definativly proven as otherwise….well let me tell you something my friend, that’s not science! In science there is ALWAYS room for doubt, you and your kind treat the field of cryptozoology more as a religion than a science, it seems that you choose to rely more on blind faith rather than objectivity or scientific scrutiny…. and you’ll buy right into every halfway convincing hoax that comes along until you wakeup, simply because you want so badly to believe.

  31. Crypto-Enthused responds:

    I would like to remind everyone that there were some network sci-fi shows back in the late sixties the used creature costumes every week on the shows. Some one some where had to be making those on a cheap budget. I say this because creature features didn’t get the budget that western and drama shows received at the time. Let us also not forget that necessity is the mother of invention and Americans do this best. If Patterson-Gimlin needed a costume I’m confident that they could have made one to rival a weekly network show with the materials at their disposal. It could be as simple as thin rubber and animal hair imposed over a plaster of paris cast of a human.

    I have been hearing for years how this is an incredible costume if this is a hoax. Take a look at some enhanced video, it’s pretty plain and non-descript around the facial area. It’s a not-so-detailed ape face. I stated earlier that I could watch this film over and over again, and you know what. I have!!

    Where I find this film to be interesting quite frankly is around the mammary glands (yes breasts). The one question that keeps me on the fence about this footage is: Why would 2 men in late sixties America produce a costume of a female creature? We were barely in our equal rights for woman infancy back then. I find it difficult to believe that 2 men from that time period would unveil this creature to the world and have it be female.

    I have other issues with the footage. I don’t find the creature in the footage to be tall enough compared to all of the reported sightings over the years. The gait of the creature appears to be that of an average sized human male. You can see this as it steps over the rocks in the footage. There appears to be some lose skin floating free of the musculature of the creatures upper right arm as it walks away (looks kind of flabby) and turns towards the camera. It doesn’t appear to do any posturing or make any vocalizations as animals (apes included) do when they feel threatened.

    I personally do not view this film as the pen-ultimate proof of big foot existence. It’s on the table an under consideration like everything else. It’s good enough to make me keep an open mind about the subject, but also ask some questions and share some observances.

    It is definitely a fascinating film full of possibilities. How much proof is needed to push something from the realm of the possible to the realm of reality? This is the question isn’t it? We watch year after year as hoaxers try to cash in when those of us that want to believe have a moment of weakness and say: “Yes, I believe”. Then they say “Gotcha sucker” and then take the money and run. As I previously stated: “We need a body on a slab or a creature in a cage”.

  32. DWA responds:

    Crypto-Enthused:

    “I have been hearing for years how this is an incredible costume if this is a hoax. Take a look at some enhanced video, it’s pretty plain and non-descript around the facial area. It’s a not-so-detailed ape face.”

    One would do well to remember that this was shot in 1967 – with a standard-issue home movie camera and film. There is very little enhancement, really, that can or should be done to it. The fidelity of the original is at the limits of what commercially-available technology could achieve, with a subject at that distance, in 1967; I am very skeptical about any efforts to enhance it. Remembering home movies of the time very well, I can tell you that anything that far away, you couldn’t see more clearly than Patty shows up on this film. But I will say this: if that were one of my relatives (and hee hee it may be), I would be able to tell, from the original, which one. Stabilizing the film was a help. Close-ups, in my opinion, have not added much, if anything. Other than, as your quote points out, showing the limits of such “enhancement.” Some aspects of motion, e.g., lifting of the toes, can be seen in closer review. Aspects of skin and hair texture, not so much. It’s more than enough, the original, just the way it is, to support the intelligent speculation that has been done on it.

    The assertions of an “incredible costume” have nought to do with anything that can be seen in an alleged “close-up.” They have to do with the proportions of the figure, and the occurrence of all of these at or near the very limits of observation for humans. In other words: it is statistically unlikely, in the extreme, that a human fitting into this “costume” lived in the United States in 1967, and against long odds that one would have been able to find one, anywhere. As to “padding,” Google Bill Munns; see what he has to say about this. And about all of the other attendant difficulties in getting a human into that suit, and getting that kind of performance out of that human once he was in the suit. No skeptical review of this film has even touched on these issues; all of them hinge on very, very dubious “accounts” by alleged “principals” whose motivations can be quickly guessed at. None of these “accounts” square, in any way, with what can be clearly seen in the film. Against this, many, many encounter reports – I know; I’ve read them – square, very well, with the animal alleged to be in this film, even reports by people who never saw the film before their encounters. Especially height; estimates of Patty’s height (based on the known sizes of objects in the film, from subsequent examination of the site) do, indeed, put this animal quite within the size ranges calculated from sighting reports (on the large side, for a female).

    “It doesn’t appear to do any posturing or make any vocalizations as animals (apes included) do when they feel threatened.”

    As to the animal’s behavior, that should be expected to be highly variable among individuals; in fact, among living apes, it is. Fact is, Patty’s response is pretty much the way female apes tend to respond to similar intrusions; if any covering of the retreat with intimidation displays is done among apes we know about, it’s generally by the ranking male in the troop, not by the females. Even so, it’s best not to make any generalizations for an animal whose social structure and roles haven’t even been studied yet, I’d think. (As to feeling threatened, Patty doesn’t appear to feel that way at all, just not inclined to stick around to see what the humans’ plans for her are. Which puts her with many, many other observed individuals.)

  33. Munnin responds:

    Judging from the content of many of the comments I read here, it seems clear than at least some of the commenters are not familiar with the analyses of this film’s subject by Dr. Grover Krantz or Dr. Jeff Meldrum. The scientific credentials of these men include expertise in comparative anatomy, physical anthropology, and paleoanthropology. I recommend that you read their work on this film before making futher conjectures about the authenticity of its subject, based on your own observations of gait, apparent height, musculature, etc. Also, reading the published works of Loren Coleman, whose blog this is, will likely clear up many questions about this; as well as questions about the claims of Bob Heironimus and Phillip Morris, or the rumour that John Chambers designed the “suit.” Buy Loren’s books and help to support this excellent venue for our discussions about Cryptozoological subjects like the Patterson / Gimlin film, as well as the museum.

  34. cryptidsrus responds:

    Thanks for reminding us, Loren.

  35. jerrywayne responds:

    A few observations…

    History

    When Patterson’s film first was publicized, the reaction from the general public and the science world was underwhelming. Sanderson published his account of the film in a “men’s entertainment” magazine, not a scientific journal. The few scientists who did view the film initially were non-committal or outright critical. It seems the only people who were excited by the film were folks, like myself, who were acclimated to believe in bigfoot by the writings of Sanderson (and others).

    My First Impression

    (The still photos initially printed). I thought the subject looked very real from behind. When the subject turns to look at the camera, I thought it looked more costumey. Overall, I was impressed.
    Later, when I saw the film itself, I was vaguely disappointed.

    My Impression Today

    The more I look at it, the more unreal it seems. I’m especially troubled by what appears to me to be a hemline around the waist and appearing again above the thigh. It thus appears to have a butt attachment.

    Also, some blowups of the subject give it a curl like hair flair above its forehead. This is significant to me because it seems to confirm Ostman’s account of the creatures he saw. Problem is, only the most believing of advocates today accepts the Ostman story; for the rest of us, Ostman’s story seems like a tall tale. In short, Patterson based his subject on a tale that probably wasn’t true. (The entire Patterson film also seems to be a “visualization” of Roe’s account.) I have presented other reason’s why I believe the Patterson film is a hoax elsewhere at Cryptomundo.

    Other Issues

    If we accept the hoax account in Long’s book, then two elements of the film mentioned in posts above may be explained without believing the film depicts a real bigfoot.

    First, the turning of the head seemingly more gorilla like than human: The man in the suit claims that the upper body piece seemed to be like football shoulder pads. This, and other possible costume restrictions, could explain the particular turn of head seen in the film.

    Second, the bulky and moving muscles. The man who claims to have been in the suit says the lower half of the costume seemed to be like waders. Waders, made of rubber, often move, bend, fold, contort, and otherwise mimic muscle movement. If such movement were partially concealed by applied hair, then it might appear realistic. Also, in the film companion to Meldrum’s book, a computer generation of the alleged skeleton of Patterson’s subject (superimposed over the film subject) displays a really weird knee wobble that would be entirely unique to a primate and unreasonable to expect. Might knee wobble be the bi-product of a pair of waders?

    The upper body muscular appearance seems to me, bases on some reproductions of the film, to be nothing more than hair layered to give such an effect.

  36. mystery_man responds:

    And around and around we go.

    As always, I appreciate a lot of the input coming in from both sides of the fence. As usual I agree with many of the skeptical points as well as seeing the merit in some of the observations that point to the possibility of this being real. But notice I say the POSSIBILITY. This is not a documented creature at this point in time, and when some get very heatedly into their opinions on this piece of footage, they tend to talk as if it is.

    One thing that I thing is important to keep in mind is that no matter how spectacular some think the film is, it does not constitute proof of the existence of sasquatch or even that it is a sasquatch we are seeing in the footage. It COULD be, but I think it is a mistake to call this “the real deal” as if it’s authenticity is a given. So many people use the PG footage as some kind of yardstick by which all data should be judged as if Patty is unquestionably real. You will hear things like “That is not what Patty looks like, so it’s fake.”, etc, and many pieces of evidence are invariably compared to what we see in the PG film. While it is true there are some things to show that Patty could be genuine, and you could argue on and on about why it seems real, the fact is that we DON’T KNOW, and in science it is generally a bad thing to base assumptions on things we lack data for or use possibly faulty data to build conclusions upon. I do think that there are intrigueing aspects of the film that show it COULD be real, but it is not established as fact and I don’t think it should be treated as if it is is.

    I have absolutely no problem with people who think the footage could be the real deal, take it as a piece of possible evidence, and want to investigate further. But it would be scientifically irresponsible to embrace Patty as an actual verified specimen, and use it as some sort of holotype to which all further research and observations should be compared, when it’s authenticity has not been verified. If there is even a remote chance that Patty is a hoax, then that compromises any data or hypotheses you have built upon the assumption that it is real. What’s more, even if sasquatch are real, we simply do not know for sure if that is what we are seeing in the PG footage. So making assumptions on behavior or movement based on the footage could end up being misleading if in fact Patty is not an actual sasquatch.

    I think that at the point we are at now with regards to the evidence and what we know, correct answer to the question of what PG shows is not “It’s the real deal.” It is not “Definite hoax.” The correct answer is “I don’t know.”

  37. DontCryBigfoot responds:

    mystery_man that’s exactly the point I was trying to make…. but you’ve stated it so much more eloquently than I have.

    I fully respect the opinions of those who remain objective but lean more towards the Patterson footage being genuine.

    I’ve read Meldrum, and Krantz, and various others analysis on this subject, and while I do repect thier research, I do have to disagree with many of the conclusions they’ve arrived at…. I still however try to remain objective, but I lean more towards the footage being a very well played hoax.

    I do not respect the opinions of those who treat this as some kind of religious experience and insist that patty is 100% real….

  38. Lyndon responds:

    Don’tCryBigfoot wrote:

    “”And you sir are the typical example of the “true believer” who accepts every piece of evidence as “100% beyond the shadow of a doubt real” simply because it has yet to be definativly proven as otherwise….”"”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. For example there are actually quite a few pieces of alleged/supposed bigfoot footage out there (Memorial Day, Freeman, Manitoba, Marble Mountain etc etc) and yet I don’t in any way ‘accept’ any of them.

    I’m also pretty skeptical of many, perhaps most, things to do with bigfoot. Personally I don’t feel these creatures are anywhere near as abundant nor as widespread across much of North America as other people seem to think.

    “”well let me tell you something my friend, that’s not science! In science there is ALWAYS room for doubt, you and your kind treat the field of cryptozoology more as a religion than a science,”"

    As I said, if that is the way you feel about ‘us’ people then perhaps you would do better in not coming here and getting yourself all worked up by us poor misguided devotees of cryptozoology.

    It’s like going to a NASCAR or Formula One forum and complaining about all the ‘rev heads’ obsessed with cars.

    “”it seems that you choose to rely more on blind faith rather than objectivity or scientific scrutiny….”"”

    And there is me thinking that SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY points towards the Patterson footage NOT being a hoax. Pity this ‘scientific scrutiny’ as you call it means little to you when it doesn’t suit your narrow minded pre-set ideas and thoughts. ‘Scientific scrutiny’ indicates the Patterson footage isn’t a hoax. Why don’t you accept that?

    “”and you’ll buy right into every halfway convincing hoax that comes along until you wakeup, simply because you want so badly to believe.”"

    Incorrect. I called this Georgia episode a hoax right from the start and if you go back to the old threads you will see that. I’m also of the opinion that the famous Minnesota Iceman was probably a hoax, even though it was never actually established as one. I find it amusing that you don’t know the first thing about me, yet are accusing me of falling for every bigfoot hoax that has ever been perpetrated.

    Personally. I feel that probably at least 90% of bigfoot claims are likely not authentic. The Patterson/Gimlin footage is an exception.

  39. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I agree that there is definitely a distinction between “evidence” and “proof”. I just think that too many advocates of the PG footage as the real deal treat it as if it IS proof. They tend to approach it as if it is unquestionably real and that based on it’s contents we should fully accept that not only does it prove the existence of sasquatch, but that Patty should be used as a scientific template by which to gage any evidence brought to bear. I feel this is a mistake, and could falsify research or lead someone astray if the footage is not authentic.

    I see the PG footage as one piece of the puzzle, not the final result or some kind of proof. It is a possible clue towards finding the truth, not the truth itself. I think it is something to look at on its own merit, as a very compelling piece of possible sasquatch footage (or very good hoax), not as some sort of established concrete standard for either real sasquatch or hoaxers. In my opinion, as you said before, there is plenty of other circumstantial evidence at least worth looking into even without the existence of this footage. It is merely a compelling part of the larger picture. Many proponents do not see it this way, and end up frustrated because no one “realizes it is real”.

    PG cannot be conclusively proven or “disproved” (although it is the believers, not the skeptics, who have to do the proving). I think many things point towards both possibilities, that it is real and that it is a hoax. The possibility of one or the other are both open to some extent in my opinion. If one thinks it might be real, and wants to use the footage as evidence to follow up on, then that is what it should be; Photographic evidence. I think it should not be treated as the ultimate standard for which all other evidence needs match up with or fit into somehow.

    There is a reason why scientists often use terms like “likely”, “possible”, “probably” and “there’s a good chance”, when they are not totally sure about something. They are leaving possibilities open, things they might have missed or that might not be fully supported by concrete evidence at the current time, but may be in the future. For inconclusive things like sasquatch, I think even a true “non believer” scientist or scientific skeptic (although the term applied to science really should just mean ‘not convinced by the evidence’ rather than ‘unwilling to believe’) might say “It is extremely unlikely”, “PG is most probably a hoax” or “I don’t know.” rather than a flat out “Bigfoot does not exist. It is impossible.” Ideally, the person will then give their reasons for thinking so.

    Many commenters here, even the intelligent skeptics, use language like this. However, I wish these terms I mentioned would be used more readily by both sides of the fence when discussing things such as the PG footage within cryptozoology as a whole. There are often too many declarative statements or hubris, and not enough dialog or consideration of other viewpoints. To me, science is ideally about finding out what the truth really is based on observed evidence, not presuming to know the truth when it is not readily apparent or it is beyond our capacity to convincingly prove or fully refute. I don’t believe it is readily apparent what is in the PG footage.

    So what is shown in the PG footage? I don’t know, but I’d like to find out in a rational manner. For now, I think it should be kept in mind that it could be a hoax, albeit in my opinion an impressive one if it is. For that reason, I think Patty is a possible, but not totally reliable example of a physical specimen of sasquatch and should not be used as such.

    PG is one piece of the puzzle, not the frame within which all other pieces must fit.

  40. DWA responds:

    And once again Patty sparks debate. And as usual, most of it is of the wrong kind.

    It’s not proof, and can’t be. There is much that points to it being real; but there is much that points to a fake Rembrandt being real, too, until we find out it isn’t. (Personal opinion: if this is fake no fake Rembrandt can touch it. But it could conceivably still be fake. I just find the huge difficulties in doing it don’t point in that direction. And I think that people who think this could be easily done need to read up on it. And to ponder why all the other fakes are so laughably funny, and so like each other, but so different from this one.)

    My viewpoint is skeptical. I’m not a proponent, although some here have been known to think that. I have an open mind on the subject. But there are many proponents – and a lot of skeptics, in fact almost all skeptics that I’ve read – who refuse to don skepticals when looking at this film. Their minds are closed, even when they say they are not. Their “arguments” seem to lean on a conspiracy-theory mindset and a general incurious cynicism, and not on easily-checkable (if one is interested, which they don’t seem to be) facts. I frequently find myself wondering whether they think the Apollo moon landings and the Kennedy assassination were faked too. (I find those a greater likelihood than Pattyfake for one reason. They’re easier to do.)

    My problem with all the suit hoaxes is a simple one: they look like people in ape suits. The proportions are human; the gait is human; the ‘creature’ announces itself, almost instantly, as human. I have seen but one or two fakes that even attempt, at all, to disguise that very obvious problem. The camera angles and cuts almost invariably scream ‘fake.
    And it’s not just the film; no effort at backstory that one can check against what is on the film is ever even attempted. It is what it is and no more: a joke.

    Patty is different. I have only seen one other video sasquatch that could even conceivably be the real thing. In both cases, the proportions and gait don’t look quite human; the animal’s behavior is consistent with what I have read in many encounter reports; and the backstory of events is supported by what’s on the video (and in Patty’s case, by other evidence supplied).

    And there is another thing. Encounter reports. You know a person is uninformed if his commentary shows no familiarity with sightings. Encounter reports are the heart of the evidence for the sasquatch; compared to them, Patty is nothing. In fact, were it not for the reports, I’d quite possibly, despite the compelling nature of the film, be firmly in the Pattyfake camp. The reports are why I am not. The animal on this film has been seen, many times, by people whose integrity is unquestioned, on any other score, by anyone. The descriptions – many of them detailed, and almost totally internally consistent – square with what we see in P/G. This occurs even when the witness has never seen the film. (Many haven’t; I saw it, in 2006, for the first time, and I’m one of the most knowledgeable people I know on this topic.) The noted anthropologist Myra Shackley – who wrote a book on this topic that accepts the sasquatch, the yeti and a couple of other hairy hominoids as real, based on the evidence – writes that, to constitute a solid body of evidence, sighting accounts must meet two tests: frequency and coherence. The sighting data for the sasquatch meets both, in spades.

    I’d like to see the debate go scientific, and shift from name-calling to evidence. In my opinion, I am far better versed on this than almost any scientist, and definitely way beyond any scientist who thinks the animal “probably doesn’t exist.” How do I know this? Reading what scientists say is how I know this; they reiterate the same ignorant arguments of urban lay cynics. If scientists actually applied their science to this topic (in greater numbers, I mean; many have done so), you would hear a far different tune about this animal from the one that seems to pervade the mass media.

    That’s it. Could it be fake? Sure. But after 40 years, the case is still wide open, and gets farther from “fake” the more we know. Because other evidence keeps coming in; and that has to be considered, too.

  41. DWA responds:

    mystery_man:

    Your attitude on P/G, and on the sasquatch, is the one with which I think the debate should be conducted. On both sides, and on the fence.

    There is much evidence. But there is, as yet, no proof. Anyone interested in this topic needs to ponder why that is. And the answers aren’t as simple as anyone thinks.

  42. Lyndon responds:

    mystery-man wrote:

    ” it is the believers, not the skeptics, who have to do the proving.”"

    That’s not actually quite true concerning the Patterson footage. In fact in this case the onus is just as much on those skeptics as it is on the proponents. Only those skeptics who don’t think the Patterson/Gimlin is real but are not actually making specific claims about it being hoaxed by anybody in particular don’t have to prove anything.

    Anybody who claims “Roger Patterson did this” or “Roger Patterson did that” have just as much of a burden on them to prove their claim as those who claim the P/G footage shows a real sasquatch. To accuse Roger Patterson of hoaxing the footage is actually a personal accusation of fraud and as such there is proof needed to quantify the accusation.

  43. AlbertaSasquatch responds:

    JerryWayne wrote “Second, the bulky and moving muscles. The man who claims to have been in the suit says the lower half of the costume seemed to be like waders. Waders, made of rubber, often move, bend, fold, contort, and otherwise mimic muscle movement. If such movement were partially concealed by applied hair, then it might appear realistic.” Actually Jerry I have a pair of rubber chest waders from the 80s and there is no way they would look like muscle underneath hair. These things are bulky and while they do move, bend, fold, and contort there is no way anyone could think they mimic muscle movement. If anything they would be the first thing someone would notice in a hoaxed situation. Now if you said they were a pair of neoprene chest waders then I would have to agree with you because they are tight and conform to your body but unfortunately they were not around in 1967.

  44. DWA responds:

    Lyndon: precisely. (As much as I agree with mystery_man on practically everything else.)

    There is an equal burden in a scientific debate on both sides of a two-sided proposition.

    When I take scientists to task on this, it’s not the ones who have no opinion, nor the ones who admit they don’t know enough to go one way or the other, nor the ones who say: I’m rooting for Patty, but my karma has stuck me with mouse lemurs. It’s the ones who call it a crock, the ones who say “very unlikely,” and the ones who say “I can understand hope, I hope too, but this is the wrong horse to back” that I take to task.

    My firm belief is this: if you know what I know on this, you must think – at the very least – what I think about it. To wit: this animal either exists, or is a fully deserving subject of concerted scientific scrutiny to determine whether it does or not. In short: this is a serious question, and to be regarded yourself as serious, you must take it seriously, or keep your trap shut about it.

    I don’t mind not having an opinion. But I do mind misusing one’s sheepskin to spread blatant misinformation.

    So far, I have seen no one who thinks “probably not real” who has offered anything that holds water to back up that position.

    This, skeptics, is how a skeptic thinks. Just so you’ll recognize it when you see it again.

  45. PhotoExpert responds:

    Good input DWA and mystery_man. I am in agreement with both of you, on many past posts. It is civil discussions like this, that actually move the argument for the existence of BF, forward! Nice job!

    And although I have been a long time fan of DWA and mystery-man, there are two relatively two new posters that always have positive contributions. Most notably, Lyndon and wdsasquatch. Good job on your clear thinking and posting! You both are welcome assets to Cryptomundo! And Lyndon, I do remember what you said when this Georgia hoax first came out! Many people were thinking it was probably real. There were a lot of people staying in the middle but not speaking out and putting in writing that it was a hoax. I remember just a few, you, me and a couple of others, who clearly and boldly stated it was a HOAX, from the very beginning. Our gut instinct told us that. We were able to analzye the situation and all the variables and call it what it was! A HOAX! Good job there Lyndon! It impressed me and I am sure many others. We called it and got it right when few spoke up. Most were on the fence until much later–like when the news conference finally came around.

    I know I will be anticipating and reading your future posts. This thread just goes to show you, that even after something negative has happened in the BF community, such as the Georgia hoax, that people in the crypto community can come together positively. And we did it so quickly.

    Now we are back on track! We are back to educated people, discussing the pros and cons, in a very mature manner. Those Georgia boys brought the discussion level down to the second grade. Thank goodness that is over with! Isn’t it great to see these types of discussions, the kind we are use to seeing at Cryptomundo, taking place again? I know I am happy about it.

  46. mystery_man responds:

    Lyndon, I beg to differ. When a scientist proposes a new idea, especially one that goes against established paradigm, it is he who must gather the evidence to show why other scientists must consider his theory. Others might gather contradictory evidence, but it is all about showing why a new piece of knowledge must be accepted. Are we to believe every theory about aliens, ghosts, and everything else people claim to exist until they are proven to NOT exist? This is actually the very opposite of science.

    The onus is on the one who proposes a new theory to show why we should go back and change what we think we know about the natural world. PG is no different. When you say that what we see is an undiscovered hairy hominid, you are making a scientific claim that what biologists know about North American wildlife and its fossil evidence is wrong. We have an established working paradigm of what the North American ecosystem that is based on data collected by many committed scientists, and because of the competitiveness of science, checked and double checked by peers. It could be wrong of course, but Bigfoot is not established to exist by any peer reviewed, accepted evidence. Although it MIGHT exist, what you are basically doing when you say it DOES is saying that they are wrong. That’s ok, paradigm has been changed before, but you have to show why that is not the other way around. It is not up to the opposition to show why the theory doesn’t work because there is already a well established working model of how things are supported by concrete evidence. If one wants to change it, they can, but it is up to them to support their findings with evidence and demonstrate why the current model is wrong, not the other way around.

    PG is the same. If you say it is real, then you are saying sasquatch exist. Great, but now you have to demonstrably show that this is the case. Skeptics do not have to show how the suit is faked because they are not the ones challenging the established model. The onus is on the proponent to prove sasquatch is real.

    This is the way science works. If scientists had to accept every new idea that challenged conventional thinking until it was proved WRONG, we would never learn anything new. That would open a Pandora’s box that would have us believing all sorts of far out ideas until they were DISPROVED. I shudder to think. It is backwards. Saying that we should accept PG as real until someone proves it is a suit is I’m sorry to say, not a very scientific approach. I DO think it might be real. I DO think it is good visual evidence, and should be followed up on. I also realize that those who would say that biologists are wrong and that Bigfoot exists, have to be the one to demonstrate it. As far as the suit goes, even thought the lack of reproducing it is telling, it would not prove anything either way even if they did. Proponents have to present evidence for their case on sasquatch whether the suit is reproduced or not.

    This is not about proving suit making abilities. It is about changing our knowledge of the natural world, and there are ways of doing this.

  47. wdsasquatch responds:

    Thanx PhotoExpert talk to you guys again later.

  48. mystery_man responds:

    DWA says that “there is equal burden in a scientific debate on both sides of the proposition.” This is true. In fact, scientists often do not agree with each other. But the thing which will inevitably decide is evidence , and its relation to the evidence that came before it. Who must provide that evidence? The one who proposes the new hypothesis.

    Where I think the above mentioned quote does not strictly apply here is that as far as mainstream science goes, there really is no debate concerning Bigfoot. Sasquatch is simply not a known, recognized animal, and although I think many things show that it might be out there, nothing yet shows that it MUST be out there.

    Our knowledge of the natural world has been collected by many scientists backed up with hard data. It is not the way they want the world to be, but rather what it has been shown to be through hard work. If one wants to amend that, they have to provide evidence to that effect. That basically means that if nothing is brought forward to show that the current model should be changed, then it is fairly safe to continue with our current understanding until further notice. Through evidence. Current understanding in mainstream science is that there is no living 7 foot tall bipedal creature living in North America. Maybe it is out there, but nothing has conclusively shown that it is, so as wrong as they may be, thinking Bigfoot probably doesn’t exist is not really a “side” of a debate or proposition, it is more that they are not recognizing it until there is reason enough to do so. I think there are plenty of reasons to consider it, but in the end remember this. The detractors (skeptics) do not have to show why the current model works. That has been established to the best of our knowledge. The one who says otherwise has to show why it doesn’t, or why it should be revised. We could argue till the cows come home on what evidence should be considered but unfortunately, no evidence has been brought forward to convince most mainstream scientists. If it had been, Patty would be a serious topic of discussion in other fields.

    Until more is brought forward to convince otherwise, I think the possible existence of Bigfoot or the idea that Patty is real is not likely to become a serious debate within mainstream science at large. I think it is a shame, because personally I (and a lot of other scientists before me) think a lot is very compelling and worthy of follow up, including the PG footage. But concerning the footage, however much evidence there is that it might not be a suit, the bottom line is that it COULD be a suit. Just because no one has been willing or able to reproduce one up to now does not necessarily follow that no one ever has. We can’t know that it hasn’t been done. As long as that is the case, skeptics don’t need to do a thing, as frustrating as that is. As far fetched as a suit may seem, they are operating within known science which needs evidence to drive the knowledge further. Proponents have a much harder job of trying to show that it is NOT a suit, cannot possibly be a suit, and that it has to be a sasquatch, but that is what they must do beyond a shadow of a doubt. The footage here is not enough to eliminate doubt on either side of the fence, I would say and so it will probably be debated forevermore until a suit is produced or a body provided.

    Lyndon- I do agree with that unfounded personal accusations are uncalled for. I actually think your posts are very thoughtful and insightful and appreciate your input very much. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say with these long responses, and if so I apologize. I am a firm believer in cryptozoology being done in a scientific manner becoming of any other field, and I don’t like to see credibility wane by presuming Patty is real, or asking skeptics to disprove things.

  49. mystery_man responds:

    Photoexpert- By the way, thanks for the kind words. I am a fan of your posts as well and think you often bring up very good points as you did way above up there. And of course DWA is one of my favorites along with some other long timers here. I definitely think that most commenters here keep a high standard of dialog and are willing to consider other viewpoints.

    I agree that there are many relatively new posters here that are making good contributions, such as Lyndon and others, and I must say that I am also very happy to be off of the whole Georgia Hoax thing and back onto cryptozoological topics like this. It really is great to get on here and discuss things such as PG rationally, in a good natured way, with informed people. I completely agree it’s nice to be having an exchange like this again. This is the best site for these sorts of talks, in my opinion, and is in fact the only site I post on.

  50. Lyndon responds:

    PhotoExpert,

    Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate that. I have actually been posting here for a couple of years now. It’s just that I don’t post as often as others, despite always reading the threads.

    As for the Georgia hoaxers, it was their whole attitude from the beginning that put me off. Not only their silly childish attacks on Loren and others but also the fact that I truly believe that if somebody really did have a sasquatch body, it would either be kept quiet until it has been verified or it would be shown pretty quickly. One or the other. I don’t think that anybody would run his mouth off over and over again bragging about this and bragging about that for what seemed like ages without showing anything. In my opinion, those who brag the most are those who have the least to show. That goes for most walks of life, not just bigfoot hehe.

    As I said earlier regarding Roger Patterson, he made his claim about filming an alleged sasquatch on the Friday…….and the movie was shown to people within days.

    The other thing was contacting Tom Biscardi. I’m sorry, but you don’t go to him. Tom Biscardi is NOT the numero uno ‘bigfoot personality’ out there. Not even close. Far from it. Even if you are not aware of anything to do with the ‘bigfoot community’ and you do Googles on the subject Tom Biscardi’s name does not crop up above and beyond anybody else’s.

    Cheers!

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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. :)

  62. 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

  63. 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.

  64. DWA responds:

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

    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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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. ;-)

  67. 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!

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of 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.