Sasquatch Coffee

The Best Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage

Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 20th, 2007

Bigfoot

In one month, it will have been 40 years since Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had their incredible encounter with an apparently female Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967. The resulting footage is the best piece of evidence we have for a population of unknown, bipedal primates – most often known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot – that lives, allegedly, in the wilderness areas of North America.

Why do I think the encounter’s resulting footage is authentic?

Roger Patterson Film Frame Drawing Comparison

I feel it brings forth many forms of evidence:

1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.

2. There are contemporary sightings, from the 1950s, here.

3. In this specific incident, the animal was seen.

4. It was smelled.

5. It was sensed by the horses.

Roger Patterson

6. A trackway of at least ten prints was found, the tracks casted and preserved – via film and in a physical state – for others to analyze. Such examinations reveal flexible, animate feet for this cryptid, known locally as a Bigfoot (and referred to as Sasquatch farther north, in Canada).

7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.

Bob Gimlin

For me, all of the above combine into the virtual and visible vortex of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

About Loren Coleman
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.


115 Responses to “The Best Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage”

  1. merchboi responds:

    I agree, Loren, that the footage is authentic.

  2. elsanto responds:

    Loren,

    Thanks for the post and for choosing that wonderful comparison between the original footage and the BBC re-creation more than thirty years later. Thirty years of innovative leaps in make up and special effects in the film and tv industries; and still nothing comes close to resembling the subject of the Patterson film (except, perhaps, Chewbacca — what a wookie! — some ten years later; and even with what become Industrial Light and Magic behind him, Chewie still moves like a human). That alone screams volumes.

    Can’t say there’ve been quite as many leaps, special-effects-wise in the last 10 years, just to clarify.

  3. tothj responds:

    After viewing photos and video of this film for over 35 years. I still get a feeling that I can’t describe and one that I don’t get veiwing any other supposed film and photographic evidence. When I couple this with the absurd attempts to recreate a film of the encounter I find this to be the best reasoning for me to beleive in the film’s authenticity.

  4. Daryl Colyer responds:

    I agree, Loren.

    I believe the film is a legitimate visual recording of an unlisted North American species, a bigfoot.

  5. DWA responds:

    I stand accused, tried and convicted of having said here, at least once, that P/G’s time has passed.

    Of course, I was wrong then and I’m wrong now.

    Each new generation of zoologists – that is, any of them that have an ounce of the questing and questioning spirit essential to the best science in them – will be challenged by this film.

    It’s not only never been debunked; no one has ever come close to explaining how it could have been faked.

    It stands unsullied on top of the hill. And sooner or later, it’s gonna gather enough snow to start rolling downhill to an answer.

  6. sasquatch responds:

    Yes, that is a nice comparison shot… I think Patty is real too; For some of the reasons Loren mentioned, but it’s mostly intuitive…I just don’t sense a human there. I also can break down many aspects of the anatomy and find it very hard to reconcile with the state of costume making of that time or a human being inside that incredibly muscular and BUSTY thing, moving in a way no-one ever thought to in a movie that I’m aware of and I own over 600 movies most of them old SCi-Fi.. Today we have Rick Baker among others who could probably do something remarkable…and maybe very close, but it would be such an expensive thing, probably costing hundreds of thousands if not a million $ that it’s pretty laughable to think Patterson and Gimlin had that type of dough back then and only came up with a few seconds of film on such an investment! It just doesn’t follow. In the late 80’s Baker did put out a fairly decent Bigfoot for Harry and the Hendersons; that made Chewy look silly, but Patty makes Harry look silly in turn. She’s real, but a lot of folks just don’t want to deal with it. End of story.

  7. mitchigan responds:

    Well said, Loren. Can’t wait for the day I can say “Told you so”.

  8. jodzilla responds:

    That BBC recreation is awful. You’d think that eleven years after Harry and the Hendersons they could come up with something a little more convincing.

  9. MadMatt32171 responds:

    I’m not sure that the comparison to the BBC “recreation” is legitimate – they did a crappy job, plain and simple, and to use that one example to say that fakery is virtually impossible is a stretch.

    The arm length on Patty is unremarkable – I think if she were standing upright the hands would fall above the knee and within a normal range for a human. I think what makes the BBC costumes arms look so short is the angle and the lousy costume – the length of the hair on the legs almost makes it look like a satyr.

    The other problem I have with Patty is her butt – in the most recent image stabilizations it looks like they don’t move in relation to the thighs; in fact there’s a crease where the right thigh actually moves under the right cheek.

    I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6’5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.

    Just my 2 cents.

  10. treeclaw responds:

    As usual interesting reading. Looks like I remain the lone dissent: I still don’t buy it. The face looks covered with a hat-like wig & beard like facial mask. There appears to be a symmetrical circling around the nose and eyes. From recollection of the actual video it walked rather akwardly in human fashion.
    Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!

  11. showme responds:

    Evaluating this film on its own, I think it looks authentic. But, after putting it in the greater context that demands that this large primate be able to make it through the harsh winters of North America, logic trumps this film.

    Tropical Asia, maybe. North America? I doubt it.

    Still, this site is great, and would love to get a great big “I told you so” from Loren someday.

  12. DWA responds:

    showme: bears live in the temperate zone, the tropics and the Arctic.

    And one species of monkey lives where the winters regularly bring snow.

    There’s no model anywhere that says an ape can’t do this.

    And this is why I keep saying: RSR! Sighting reports describe an animal very well adapted to living in places where it snows a lot.

    “Logic” doesn’t say anything about this animal. Unless one refers to the evidence, to which logic says: Quite plausible.

  13. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    Did Roger Patterson ever try drawing what he filmed? If so, I’d like to see it side-by-side with a still from the film. I tried to found out for myself, but was only able to find these three pictures (This is the source for the first and last images) I also found an interesting sculpture of his (notice how it compares the the cover of his book. Also, I believe the mask at the bottom is the “Patty mask made from a modified Tor Johnson mask” that’s mentioned in the thread).

    Also, am I the only one who thinks its odd that the horses supposedly got spooked by Patty’s scent and yet were still willing to follow its tracks soon after?

  14. mystery_man responds:

    I have discussed this topic so many times on this site before, that I will refrain too much from rehashing my views here but I do have two cents to throw in. In essence, I am an open minded skeptic on this footage. There are many compelling reasons why I feel it may be real, and there are some that lead me in the other direction as well.

    To me, one of the latter is the glaring absence of any other footage of this quality, indeed anything even approaching it. While that may seem to be in the film’s defense, I think it is odd that not a single person except Patterson would have ever captured any comparable footage, or anything even close. Now before other posters chime in and give me reasons why the lack of footage might be, I have heard most of them before and I can only say that 40 years is a very long time. In that time, nothing like this has been put forward. I find it odd that a large animal that is apparently able to be properly filmed in its native habitat once would not have been adequately filmed at least a few other times and thus leaving us with one clip of footage upon which to base countless theories and extrapolate sasquatch movement and phenotype. One clip for as long as this huge creature has been out there seems strange especially considering that groups have gone out searching just as Patterson did and turned up merely tantalizing signs of sasquatch, or nothing at all.

    This is not reason enough for me to dismiss this video by a long shot, and as I said there are lots of things that to me point to this being a real creature. I do not mean to detract from the pros of the film that Loren and others have mentioned and those are all very valid. Indeed there are possible reasons for the lack of video footage, as filming even known creatures in their natural habitat is no easy task and the fleeting factors of filming this elusive creature may just not have come together as they did on the fateful day this footage was taken. It’s not enough to make me disregard this video, but it is one of the things that makes me step back from all the praise and think.

    I am hoping that new footage of a comparable quality will turn up and allow us to cross reference the two.

  15. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Loren

    This is the best you got, 40 years on? Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd that the evidence hasn’t gotten better since the Johnson administration?

    A few comments on the aspects of the P/G film that impress Loren:

    “1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.”

    This is irrelevent; nearly any area of North American wilderness (especially in the Pacific Northwest) will have some variation of stories of a Native American wildman myth attached to it.

    “4. It was smelled.
    5. It was sensed by the horses.”

    These have never been proven, but let’s assume they are true. I’m curious to know how Loren is certain that what Patterson and Gimlin smelled was indeed a Bigfoot, and not some other foul odor that are common in wilderness areas. And how does Loren know that the horses sensed a Bigfoot? Do horses only rear in the presence of a Bigfoot? Of course not.. any number of things can cause a horse to rear or act oddly. This is hardly good supporting proof of the authenticity of the film.

    “7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.”

    Sigh. Come on… you know as well as I do that no one has “verified” that the P/G film is “authentic,” nor of a “probable unknown living primate.” Assertions are fine, but let’s stick to the facts…

  16. Grant responds:

    There’s one thing I can never really stop thinking about from the first time I read it, even though it isn’t evidence from the film itself. This is that, from the moment it was clear that great numbers of people weren’t believing it, Patterson and Gimlin had “nothing to lose, and probably a lot to GAIN,” from confessing to a hoax, and explaining how they did it. Certainly if they were after money more than anything else, this would have been the next thing to do. But of course, Patterson never did this, and Gimlin hasn’t done it in all this time. Again, this isn’t evidence in the same sense, but it seems impossible to ignore it.

  17. gridbug responds:

    There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.

    “I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”

    :D

  18. sluggo responds:

    The arms say a lot..good to see the two pics side by each…

    hard to believe to is bogus for the simple reason that the perps stood to make a fortune and no one ..did they ?

    sluggo

  19. dbard responds:

    # gridbug responds: September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.

    “I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”

    :D
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree completely with gridbug’s post.
    On an instinctual level, this creature “feels” real.

    Mr. Radford – If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.

  20. DARHOP responds:

    Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!

    And I don’t see any evidence that proves Patty is a fake, like the suit. Don’t you think that if the person that had the suit for this video, specially after all these years. They would come forward and say, look, the P/G video is a hoax. Patty is fake, here is the suit I wore. Or here is the suit that was worn.
    That would be the best evidence for proof that she is fake. But has anybody come forward with a suit ? No, because one doesn’t exist. You’d have to have some huge thigh muscle for it show through a suit like Patty’s does. Unless it was your birthday suit. Like Patty’s is. So that is one major factor why I think te video is real. Besides the fact that, well, Patty just doesn’t look like a person in a suit. Well, maybe she does. Like I said, it’s her birthday suit though.
    And I too live for the day, when I get to say, I told you so, to so many people that laugh at me about this subject!
    The closed minded Butt Heads!

  21. Sergio responds:

    MadMatt32171 wrote:

    “I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.”

    So do it. Get your camera. Get your big guy. Get your monkey suit. Make it tight. And just do it. Film it. Compare.

    Or better, let us compare.

    Words don’t mean JACK, dude.

    Knock yourself out.

    I think what you’re gonna get is gonna be downright laughable because the film is the real deal.

  22. rbhess responds:

    Loren has expressed his view here, and I respect that–he’s been working in this field for a long time and one can’t fault him for taking a stance on the Patterson bigfoot; perhaps one should, after all, say “yes” or “no” to things like this, and not stand on fences. Nevertheless, no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot bring myself to get off this particular fence and take a dive into the “yes” or “no” side. The Patterson film simply does not constitute “evidence” to me. Furthermore, I am resolute that it should not constitute evidence to anyone. It is not a physical artifact of a “bigfoot” (such as a body, or hair sample, or scat, etc.) but is, rather, mere images on celluloid–and film, as we know, CAN be faked. Yes, there are circumstances where a film of this kind could be reasonably judged authentic… but here they do not apply. What we have, with the Patterson film, is a living thing–incongruous with what we know about established biology and zoology–filmed very briefly and at a distance, witnessed by only two men. What can be said about it definitively? Very little. But clearly it is quite possible and plausible for two men to cook up a scheme (involving a third to wear the suit) to fake a sighting such as this, and to carry it out. That circumstantially the film resists easy dismissal on this ground does not, in itself, constitute proof that the subject of the film is real.

    Now, here I do not at all refer to Mr. Coleman, whom I believe to be a scrupulously honest, careful, and professional sort… but the fact is that I never cease to be appalled at the hyperbole which is freely tossed around about this subject by others in the field and particularly by people who write in to this forum. It is simply not true, as asserted in one of the postings above, that “no one has even come close to explaining how it could have been faked.” In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked; Patterson may have constructed a suit or had one constructed, may have enlisted someone to wear the suit, and then filmed the well-choreographed sequence we have today. That it might have been a difficult undertaking for Patterson may or may not be the case; but at any rate that, as I said, does not constitute proof that Patterson couldn’t have done it. And as long as the possibility exists that he could, it’s utterly wrong to blithely dismiss this possibility simply because we want to believe. Were bigfoot in legend–and more importantly in the film–a twenty foot tall monstrosity with six arms and three heads (or some such configuration) we could of course much more reasonably dismiss the possibility of a hoax in this case. But bigfoot is none of these things. The bigfoot in Patterson’s film is well within the range of a man-sized creature, moving very much like a man (something which in itself speaks against the likelihood that this is a real, non-human animal) and is therefore more likely to be a man in a suit than an unknown primate or what have you.

    Notice I say “likely.” Here I sit on the fence. I do not say and have never said that I believe Patterson’s film to be a fake; I merely say it could have been, and reasonably so… and as such it does not equal evidence to me.

    Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.

  23. CrimsonFox79 responds:

    Great post! I still believe that the P-G footage is authentic, and one of the best clues we currently have towards the existence of bigfoot.
    IMO, especially for its time, the creature is way too detailed and realistic to be a hoax. Just looking at the shape, anatomy, musculature, etc. I can’t see that being a costume. The fur and musculature sits firmly upon the figure rather than seeming like a separate suit over another body. The face, while its far away and blurred, looks to be much more detailed than an old costume as well.

    I also disagree with the idea that ‘why are P-G the only people who ever had such an encounter’…
    We have animals we find today that no one has ever seen at all despite exploring the territory. So who’s to say an elusive, intelligent-seeming humanoid can’t go unseen?
    Heck- I still find bugs in my own small backyard that I have never seen before (despite a lifelong interest in insects and digging up my yard and through the grass/bushes for the past almost 3 decades.

    Just b/c something was only seen once, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Things that were never seen at all are there right under our noses. Some creatures are just better at hiding.
    Who knows what deep caves bigfoots may live in? I’ve been in bear caves…. and guess what- no bears in sight! Where are they? I dunno, but I do know they exist.
    There’s one park I go to nearby that has an extremely high population of deer for the small size of a park it is. I almost never see even 1 deer there.
    Because even when there is a huge abundance of animals, they somehow still remain hidden even when you are looking for them.
    I know you can’t compare deer to bigfoots, but it’s the same concept of how well creatures can remain hidden:
    An animal so overpopulated (deer) can remain unseen while you’re trying to find them.
    So why is it so odd that something rare, elusive, and (supposedly) very intelligent, wouldn’t know how to keep out of view of people even while they are searching for it?

  24. Sergio responds:

    rbhess wrote:

    “In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked…”

    True enough.

    It’s very easy to explain how it could have been faked, but very difficult to explain how it could have been faked without overlooking important details, using a great deal of hyperbole yourself, as well as imagination to the extreme.

    So far, all explanations have bordered on ridiculous, and in light of the facts in this case, have really just made not much sense.

    The fact that NO ONE has been able to replicate the film is VERY relevant, because it serves toward demonstrating the difficulty involved in staging such an event, especially in 1967, in a rough, debris-strewn creekbed, in a non-stop piece of film.

    rbhess also wrote:

    “Those that [sic] demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.”

    Geez. Do you people just look at yourselves in the mirror everyday and say to yourself, “I must be condescending. I must be condescending. I must be condescending….”

    Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.

    Challenging someone to carry out their boastful and brash words, is not at all indicative that anyone needs a lesson in the scientific method. I rather think you probably need to take a remedial course in “Playground Etiquette 101.”

  25. Loren Coleman responds:

    From “showme”:

    Tropical Asia, maybe. North America? I doubt it.

    Oh this was sad to see someone say this.

    One of the most adaptive great apes, the naked ape Homo sapiens has been able to live in a wide variety of climates, far beyond the tropics. Who is to not say that the wide-ranging Sasquatch have not also evolved thusly?

    And, of course, more than humans have lived in temperate climates, as the fossil records shows varied examples. One of the best known, of course, is Dryopithecus who lived in temperate Europe. Indeed, the name Dryopithecus means “oak-tree ape,” for some Dryopithecus were found with oak tree stumps and oak leaves.

  26. bill green responds:

    hey loren, totaly agree with you & everyone above replys the p/g film does look authentic & the best piece of evidence about the sasquatch pheanomena yet the conterversy continues about it but i guess that how stuff happens. thanks.

  27. red_pill_junkie responds:

    40 years and still the P-G film can create a lot of controversy. That’s a good thing.

    The film may be real (as I stated on ther thread I’m 30-40% convinced myself), but still more evidence is needed.

    And another video won’t suffice either I’m afraid, not in this era of computer simulations at least.

    But another video or photograph migth still be beneficial because it would convince more people to put more effort and funds into finding these creatures, use more sophisticated technology, like IP cameras on top of trees or something.

    Maybe a very good photograph could convince a Bill Gates or a Paul Allen to give a couple millions into what could be the greatest biological discovery of all time.

    How much money you think it could take to find Sasquatch? 1 million? 10?

    And I think that even if we DO find one of these creatures, there won’t be a “told you so” from the P-G film supporters, since there would STILL be people doubting the authenticity of the film.

  28. hlw responds:

    I was 19 when this footage was taken, it seems as real to me today as it seemed then.

    You have to be self absorbed to be able to think you know just what can adapt where. Nature has a way. Look at a penguin or a seal in a zoo, do they look like they should or could be swimming around and under ice, or living in cold climates. What would make a bigfoot less adaptable than a moose or elk? We now know that some dinosaurs lived in cold climates.

    Loren correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a study done of this film by Disney studios in the late 60’s or early 70’s specifically asking what it would cost to replicate this film. Wasn’t that cost in the vicinity of $50,000 then. Probably a couple more zeros than Patterson had.

  29. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Mr. Radford – If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.”

    The burden of proof is on the claimants to prove it is real, not on critics to prove it is fake. Besides that, it’s bad logic: You seem to be saying that a lack of definitive evidence proving the film is a fake means that it must be real…this makes no sense.

    For all those who demand to know where the suit is (after 40 years), or where the proof that the film is faked is: As cryptofolks are fond of saying, “absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” That applies to Bigfoot, and also to proof that the film is a fake.

  30. showme responds:

    Humans have adapted to colder climates because they can alter their circumstances by wearing clothing and using fire. We are not “naked apes” anymore when the temperature drops. Have any claims for clothing or firemaking ever been made concerning Sasquatch?

    I’m intrigued by the fossil evidence of Dryopithecus in Europe, but do we know exactly how cold it was back then?

  31. MadMatt32171 responds:

    Sergio: You’re right – Words don’t mean JACK, and your saying that P_G is “the real deal” doesn’t make it so. But don’t worry- should I ever have the time or inclination to fake a BigFoot video, I’ll let you have the first crack at it.

    AtomicMrEmonster: That Tor Johnson/Patty mask is a dead ringer- what’s its history? Was this done as an experiment to prove that a mask could have been made, or did it turn up as a result of research. I followed the link to the thread but couldn’t find any mention of it there.

  32. DARHOP responds:

    I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy – 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.

    Whatever. Well then convince me & the rest of us. For one, the $ issue. If you are like the rest of us, I don’t think you have the $ to come close to making a suit that look’s as good as your supposed Patty suit. Not only that. 6’5 & 325 just isn’t gonna do it my man. I’d guess that Patty is (or was) (Hope she is still with us) well over 4 hundred pounds. So honestly, I doubt you can make a video that comes even close to this one. It’s hard to duplicate the real thing. As so many have found out. I don’t know, maybe you can. So I say go for it, Get yourself a 325 pounder 6’5 fellow and make us a REAL GOOD video. And even if that was accomplished, it doesn’t prove the P/G film is fake. Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be. Doesn’t Exist!

  33. Loren Coleman responds:

    Remember folks, this is not a “forum” but a “comments” section.

    If you start arguing via personalized interchanges and begin flaming, you will see those comments of yours disappear.

    Thank you for keeping it to the points of the blog and not taking it off-topic or personalizing it.

  34. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be.”

    Again with the faulty logic! Does anyone else see just how ridiculous this burden of proof is? All that this person (and many others I’ve spoken to) needs to have the film be real is that the suit not materialize! So if what’s left of the suit is rotting away in a Spokane garbage dump, or if someone simply took a few minutes to burn the suit to destroy evidence of the hoax, then that automatically makes the film real…. “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”… remember?

    Attention all Bigfoot hoaxers: As long as you destroy any definitive evidence of your hoax, people will assume your hoax must be the real thing!

  35. rl_esteves responds:

    I’ve always thought this footage was legit. When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate. Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.

  36. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate.”

    Really? How do you know how much it would have cost to create the P/G film? Do you have a real estimate, or just a wild guess? Seems to me it could have been as little as a few hundred dollars…

  37. Benjamin Radford responds:

    “Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.”

    This is a fascinating suggestion… anomalies should be considered real until proven fake. So we should assume that dragons, fairies, sea serpents, ghosts, and anything else that anyone considers “anomalous” are actual events. That is exactly the opposite of science.

    How, exactly, will that “advance our knowledge so much more”?

  38. DARHOP responds:

    Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.

    One doesn’t need science to know that no suit has ever been brought forth. And I honestly think that if one existed, it would of been brought forth by now.

  39. greenmartian2007 responds:

    I have read the majority of the comments here.

    I will put in my 2 cents.

    a) This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away. The posterior tells the tale. I would like all the readership here to get a copy of that book. Order one either via Hancock Publishing House up in Washington state, via Amazon, or even via interlibrary loan. Get the book, read it. Look at the stills.

    b) Ape suits that are well done are not difficult to make (that is, ones that don’t “have a zipper showing”). I don’t have the URL link off hand, but there is a website forum on-line, all about the P-G film , and has many images (film stills) of ape costumes from the 1940s and 1950s (that is, ten to 25 years earlier) from a variety of wild creature and monster-type movies that look very veracious (and there is no zipper to be seen, and now usage of prosthetic extenders for arms, none of that). So attempting to use the BBC’s “mock-umentary” effort (you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget, and this still shown in this thread is from another BBC production suffering from such a fiscal malady) is bogus. I hope that one of the readers here can supply that specific URL link to the discussion forum showing the film stills, etc. from other “ape” films. That particular website is very enlightening, very instructive.

    c) Ape suits do not need to be exceptionally complex to be viewed (especially in a long shot, as the P-G film is) as decently “real.”

    d) Wasn’t there already articles about a guy claiming to be the person who was in the suit? What about that? Why not have a thread about that facet? He was even on some TV program, and underwent a polygraph. The polygraph examination indicated he was not lying. Wasn’t there a Mark Chorvinsky (please excuse if I have the wrong person–an editor with Strange magazine) article about the guy in the suit also?

    e) This P-G film is NOT the only footage of Sasquatch out there. I am exceptionally puzzled as to why NO ONE in this thread is talking about the video footage on the back end of DVD “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”….I don’t have it right in front of me, but there is a very extended video clip by a park ranger of one of these creatures walking in front of a pine tree, and later on, attempting to hide behind a thicket, and later, on, appears to pick up something animate and small and walks off…THAT is a real sasquatch video. THAT has more weight (yes, it is also not very clear, but it’s real, from my viewing of it)…that videotape has more verismillitude than this P-G film. (There is also another video at the back of the DVD as well of a running Sasquatch, perhaps. That one I have reservations about. But this 1994 clip, if memory serves, looks like what the “atmospherics” would be of videotaping creatures out in the wild, in the woods.)

    f) I think there is a grave peril, Loren, when you hang your hat on this P-G film footage. Because if it is proven to be fake, beyond a reasonable doubt, less interested bystanders will tell you, “Hey, you said this was real. And it’s fake. Let’s go, Mabel.” See what I am saying? Cyrptozoology cannot afford to “bless” questionable footage as being REAL and AUTHENTICATED (truly, the P-G film footage has not been shown to be, in either labeling). Let’s move forward, and get some real, true, outrageously grand central footage.

    g) You talk about the footprints at the site allegedly left by Patty. How much examination of these prints has there been? I dimly recall reading that there were several rains between the “event” and the actual filming of some of those prints, when Patterson went back to film them (I hope that I am recalling that correctly). (I am attempting to say that the footprints from the P-G event weren’t fresh.)

    h) What I will say, is that the P-G film is a catalyst for further research. That is what I will agree to, and stand on as a position on this topic, a viewpoint that I can 100% whole-heartedly support.

  40. DWA responds:

    And here we go, off for 100 posts again!

    One thing that needs no proof, because we prove it over and over again, right here: if this was a hoax, there has never been another anywhere near its league. Not one that’s ever been sniffed out, anyway. Sheer genius, to do it with less than a minute of film. Sound like Patterson to you?

    1. One of the funniest things about the sasquatch is all the lame attempts to explain why “no one ever sees one.” MANY, MANY people see these animals. RSR!

    2. If any other animal can adapt to a cold climate, there is nothing that says or even implies that the sas can’t. He doesn’t need fire, any more than bear or moose do. How in the world can anyone say there’s any scientific evidence that apes can’t live in the cold? Everything else does: there are fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, all the way down to protozoans that can do it. (Some can even live frozen.) There were elephants that did, and rhinoceroses that did. What, apes are the sole exception? The sas’s size is one item in its favor; its ability to routinely catch and eat many things other animals (like bears) can’t is another. I could go on, but why? It’s silly. If the sas exists, voila! we have a snow ape to go with our snow monkey. Eureka!

    3. What skeptics need to get over – and can’t – is the General Implausibility Theorem. There is nothing anywhere in the scientific canon that pronounces the sasquatch impossible, implausible or even unlikely. Show me why you think it can’t exist, or even why it is unlikely that it does, and I will show you – easily – why you are wrong. No one has met this challenge yet, so don’t waste your time.

    4. If you showed a scientist from a far galaxy every life form on earth – except us and the sas – and told him to pick which of the two latter was the most plausible based on what he now knew, the alien would pick the sas, every single time. WE are the science-fiction fantasy that can’t exist. Yet here we are.

    5. Here it is. No one who knows about this animal even what I know considers it either (a) unlikely or (b) nonexistent. Not if he’s smart enough to understand what he knows.

    Period.

    And yes, I’m a skeptic on the sas. Which, if you say you are, should really give you pause. You’re not a skeptic; you are a closed-eyed, feverishly-praying nonbeliever.

    Sorry. I deal in facts; and there it is. Facts.

  41. DWA responds:

    and rl_esteves:

    Exactly right. Patterson-Gimlin can elicit only one rational response: That’s an unknown animal. Until we prove it isn’t.

    Too many people, including scientists, when faced with the unknown, forget how science is supposed to work. The thinking that suppresses and stymies knowledge is NOT how science works! Not when it’s working.

    P/G is evidence. When science is working properly, evidence is FOLLOWED UP TO A CONCLUSION.

  42. bccryptid responds:

    I agree with Loren, my own views:

    The object moves fluidly in the terrain, it is comfortable and confident as it moves along a dry riverbed and up into the trees. I have yet to see a person in a suit do this, unless they have practiced for weeks to do it in a movie. Until I see an amateur pull off this kind of confident motion in a hoax video, I remain convinced of the film’s authenticity on this alone.

    The object matches thousands of eyewitness descriptions. Barrel body. Very long arms. Conical head. Fur covered chest. On and on. And to top it off, the object is very female, a feature that is seldom reported but when reported, again MATCHES The video. Why would they make a female suit? MUCH harder to pull off, and so few sightings are female. No, they would have gone with the modified male gorilla suit job.

    I disagree with the poster on here that states that a human could anatomically fit in that shape. I would like to see that demonstrated. Every demonstration I have seen proves the opposite.

  43. deejay responds:

    i think the footage is fake, but I still think there may be bigfoot out there. maybe an unpopular opinion here, but never the less, i am entitled to it. to me, it looks like a person in a suit, even examining the close-ups, it still doesn’t convince me. patterson was a con artist, thats well documented. The P/G Bigfoot doesn’t move like an animal thats been hiding in the wild for all these years, even giant gorillas move with great fluidity and stealth. The P/G Bigfoot looks nothing like that.

  44. DWA responds:

    greenmartian2007: it does nothing for your stance against Loren that you commit the same sins of which you accuse him, in spades.

    1. “This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away.”

    Only two things I need to say to this. (a) The stills you mention don’t blow anything away but the notion that this critter can be easily blown away. Unless you have info to which we are not privy – like details – and are prepared to share that with us. The “posterior” item you discuss was lonog ago dismissed as the red herring it is. I own the book of which you speak. Makes a good case for the animal. And says: P/G is a real, unknown critter. (b) “Didn’t they confirm the existence of this animal last year? Come on, Mabel.” Grave peril there, gm.

    2. Your comments in b) and c) of your post. I have seen two, count ‘em two, pieces of video sas evidence that I have not immediately dismissed as either fake or blobsquatch. P/G is one. An ape suit that can convince me that ain’t human is something against which I’d be willing to bet, if you gotta put a human in it, and make him look natural. People in ape suits have universally looked, in my experience, precisely like people in ape suits. P/G looks nothing like any ape suit I have ever seen; and all ape suits, in fundamental respects, look alike. (Human proportions, for one thing, a dead giveaway. A human walking in them, yet another.)

    3. Your comments in d) of your post. I deal only in facts and evidence and here’s a fact: no one has made a claim to involvement in a P/G hoax whose testimony wasn’t ludicrous on its face. Period.

    4. How can you say what you say in h) after everything else you said? If it is fake, exactly what is it catalyzing? Further research in Really Good Fake Suits?

  45. DWA responds:

    (You may see the skeletal beginnings of this post above. Keystroke glitch.)

    When Sergio says:

    “Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.”

    He hits the nail right on the head.

    See, this is the skeptics’ problem: thinking they can get away with outlandish claims that MUST be proven for the skeptic to have a position a thinking person is obliged to respect.

    They say it’s easy, and in 40 years no one has come within 50 miles of beginning to get really far away from it.

    It gets pretty tiresome to see the same old urban-ignoramus arguments-against, particularly when spewed by people alleging credentials. I don’t care if you are a scientist or not. I can tell out of which orifice you are speaking on this topic, pretty much instantly.

    Try me. You are getting SO old. Try thinking. It’s sort of standard on this site.

    Sheesh. Fort was RIGHT!

  46. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    MadMatt32171:

    The mask was made a few years ago using materials available in the 60’s. Back in 2005, a guy by the name “Dfoot” built such a mask for a Halloween Bigfoot dummy. The total cost of the dummy was about $250! The pictures of the dummy are gone, but the comments about it were very positive. The mask was made by taking a Don Post Tor Johnson mask, attaching a mouth (and, apparently, chin) cut from a Don Post “Bongo the Chimp” mask to it, and then building up some details and adding hair to it. Dfoot claimed that this naturally created the “dent” seen on Patty’s face (His comments make it seem to have been prior to when the mask got its details built up;I think the picture on the bottom right is the “unfinished mask with a fake eye”).

    Here is a picture of a “Bongo the Chimp” mask; I haven’t found a picture of a Don Post Caveman mask yet. I’ve found several Don Post Tor Johnson masks, but I’m not sure when they were made or which style they are (thicker, high quality masks-I’m not sure of the date or maker, but this shows what I’m talking about-and thin, less sculpted versions for the cheap crowd/kids-as seen in pharmacies in October).

    This 1964 ad for what seems to be these types of masks for $30.00, whereas this ad advertises $8.95 masks. This site claims that this is a 60’s Tor Mask and that it sold for $8.95. Here are some other $8.95 masks. To me, the price implies that this could be one of the “thin, cheap” masks. Searching this site’s gallery section found several masks, one is said to be a 90’s redesign and the others aren’t dated (and often have custom paint jobs). Also, a Don Post gorilla suit cost $450 and up in 1964. I’m not saying Patterson used a Don Post ape suit, I’m merely showing how much a good premade ape suit went for then.

    This could explain Patty’s supposedly short hairs. Patterson would need hair for the mask, hands, and feet and, if he didn’t/couldn’t buy more fake fur, he could’ve cut the long hairs on the suit in half and used the clippings on them.

  47. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    mystery_man:

    Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).

    I haven’t seen these yet and don’t know how accurate they are, but I figured that people here would be interested:

    The movie “Phantom of the Rue Morgue” supposedly has a gorilla suit with a Patty-esque body.

    I’ve heard that the cotton batting muscles used for George Reeves’ costume on the old Superman TV series moved with his body.

    Apparently, there’s a scene in “Watchers Reborn” where a monster has to turn its entire torso around, a la Patty.

    I’ve also heard that the workprint footage from the Star Trek pilot episode “The Cage” contains a scene with moving leg muscles being seen on an “Anthropoid Ape” costume worn by Janos Prohaska. It seems to be on the Star Trek Volume 3 DVD boxset, but I’m not 100% sure.

  48. mystery_man responds:

    AtomicMrEmonster- What I meant was that there is a lack of purportedly REAL footage that is as good as the PG footage seems to be to everyone. If there was such footage available, then why is the PG footage considered the “best evidence” and has been pored over for all of these years? There is nothing seriously approaching it because if there was, it would be getting discussion time here right along with this one. Thanks for the info on Patty- esque footage though!

    GreenMartian- I did not say that PG is the ONLY film of a supposed sasquatch, just that it is the only one that seems to be strikingly clear enough and of such good quality to be considered such fantastic evidence of the creature and therefore so widely embraced as real. If the clip you mentioned was so mind blowing, then why is it not discussed over and over again on forums such as this? Extraordinary claims like sasquatch are going to require extraordinary footage to make people consider it. There is not much competition with the PG film as being the definitive video evidence and this somewhat bothers me as I mentioned in my post way above. This point actually raises my skepticism about the authenticity of the film.

    A lot of people seems to think that the fact that it hasn’t been reproduced and hasn’t seen much competition is a reason why it could be a real creature. Maybe. But I also think it is suspicious that no other footage like this would be produced from time to time if the creature was real. We have less clear clips out there that could be real, but nothing like PG, and that just doesn’t sit well with me. Perhaps Patterson was just incredibly lucky, at the right place, and the right time to get this footage, but with all those searching for sasquatch this hasn’t happened again to such effect? Ever? I think that maybe there is also as much a chance that a lot of factors could have fallen into place to produce an amazing hoax as well, and the possibilities have been discussed here before.

    I would be more inclined to believe that this footage was definitively real if we had other comparable clips with just as much realism and a still had a lack of anyone able to reproduce them. If there was absence of any suit brought forward and these sorts of amazing clips popped up more often, that would be more indicative to me as a likely real creature even in the absence of physical evidence. But what we have is this one clip and I cannot accept it as any sort of irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot. Highly compelling? Yes. Proof? No.

    Is the PG footage a once in a life time shot of a real, giant hairy hominid? I think it is possible. Is it a fluke and Patterson managed to pull of a once in a lifetime hoax? I think that is possible too, in my opinion. In the end I do not take the lack of success of anyone able to reproduce it as proof of this being authentic footage. And so, I remain on the fence.

  49. jules responds:

    About the footage – Hum, I could argue both sides. Things can remain hidden. I have been hiking in Iowa for many years – plenty of wildlife around here. I have never seen any bones laying around.

    Yesterday a pheasant and I almost scared each other to death! I guess they like to hide in long grass.

  50. Lyndon responds:

    “”(you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget,””

    Complete nonsense. In fact, BBC documentary programes are famed for not doing things on the cheap. As a BBC licence payer, I can tell you that the BBC are reknowned for extravagant spending.

    The X Creatures series certainly wasn’t done on the cheap. In the Bigfoot episode alone they actually took the time, trouble and expense to visit various out of the way scenes of past encounters and sightings. These ranged from northern California to British Columbia. I don’t know of many (any?) other Bigfoot documentaries that actualy took the time and trouble to get to these out of the way locations (from example the location of Glenn Thomas’ rock pile sighting in Oregon to Mike McDonald’s BC Fraser River sighting). They could have done it on the cheap and not bothered to visit ANY of these locations.

    The BBC obviously bit off more than they could chew regarding a Patty replica. It quite plainly became obvious to them during the making of this documentary that a true replica would be either impossible or cost an extortionate amount of money…..far more than was initially realised. Only then did they cut their losses. The rest of the programme was by no means ‘done on a shoe-string budget’.

    One more thing. It wasn’t a ‘BBC suit’. The X Creatures suit actually came from the award winning Optic Nerve studios, run by John Vulich. This is even more interesting.

  51. Lyndon responds:

    I think a lot of people are ‘missing the point’ about the P/G footage, particularly the skeptics. It’s not the looks alone that make it very impressive but moreso the MOVEMENT of the subject. The argument that “well it’s only because the footage is not pin sharp” is almost irrelevant. We do not need it to be pin sharp to establish it’s locomotion/movement.

    The subject in the P/G footage moves in such a fluid, natural and totally comfortable manner that no man in any kind of apeman or bigfoot costume has ever been capable of doing. If you watch all of them, from t.v documentaries to commercials to movies the actors in the suits never ever convey a feeling of natural and fluid body movements, nevermind out and out gaits. The subject in the P/G footage is TOTALLY UNIQUE in this respect. There has NEVER been anything even close to it.

    Now if this were a suit then it was obviously a heavily padded, cumbersome and restrictive suit, not just in the upper body and arms but also in the legs and feet, yet the subject moves with no trouble whatsoever and walks and looks perfectly at home on a dried up uneven riverbed.

    I defy ANY actor in any suit to walk in such a cumbersome costume with huge fake feet on along a dried up riverbed and make it look natural, fluid and convincing.

    We hear so much from arrogant FX personnel that it can be done. How about they actually SHOW us how it can be done instead of TELLING us how it can be done??????

    The top creature suit makers of the time…Janos Prohaska and John Chambers went on record to state the subject in the P/G footage was better than anything they could have come up with and that’s all we ever need to know.

  52. Lyndon responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster wrote:

    “”Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).””

    Oh come off it. That’s only in view for a second or two but even that is enough to see it’s a fake. The costume isn’t even tight fitting, the hair is longer than the P/G subject, the head is far too big in comparison to the width of the shoulders (a dead easy suit giveaway) etc etc etc.

    Why don’t we see it clearly, even at a distance? Because the movements would give the game away to even the gullible….that’s why.

    Patterson ‘broke all the rules’ that hoaxers stick to yet his film lives on while the hoaxes don’t.

  53. Terry W. Colvin responds:

    My “gut” feeling is it is a real creature. Since neither Patterson or Gimlin made money from their “alleged” stunt it seems they filmed something unknown.

  54. Roger Knights responds:

    MadMatt32171 wrote:
    “The arm length on Patty is unremarkable – I think if she were standing upright the hands would fall above the knee and within a normal range for a human.”
    ===========

    That’s a common error. It’s not that Patty’s arms hang lower on her thighs that makes them “long,” it’s that they’re long in relation to her height. That’s because her legs are short in relation to her height, so both her arms and torso are relatively longer.

  55. DWA responds:

    Roger: correct.

    Of course, lots of eyewitnesses report really long arms, period. “To the knees” is frequently reported, and even somewhat below in some cases.

    But this serves to raise another funny thing about skeptics. They seem to expect every sas to look exactly like Patty! Not gonna happen. Another frequent report is “it didn’t look like the animal in that film.” Well, no. It was a different individual. Selective pressures drive individual differences, which are further driven by random snapcracklepops in genetic coding. It does seem from what I’ve seen and read of other species, that primates – apes in particular – are less persnickety about appearance in choosing mates, perhaps because brainpower is so much more important to primate survival than size, streamlining, number of antler points, etc. So one would expect, I’d think, a wider range of individual appearances among the sas than one would see in other North American species.

    But as most skeptics seem either unschooled in relevant disciplines, or unable to apply that knowledge to this case because of conscious or unconscious bias, I guess it’s understandable.

  56. greenmartian2007 responds:

    a) The film is not real, and I have provided at least two subject matter branches for that–one, film stills taken from the P-G film, that show definite problems in the morphology presentation of the suit that indicate fakery; two, I also mention that there is both information via print (Strange magazine article, as well as the TV program of the polygraph) that the guy who said he was in the suit, said he was in that suit. Deal with those issues, if you so choose.

    b) I am not a “True Believer” in this film. It is not a matter of faith to me. I personally feel that if this film is shown to be a hoax, then so be it. I think that there is enough problems with not only the film, but also the milieu of the film that it should be set aside.

    c) I do think that there is a possibility that Sasquatch exists. But it is not proven with this film. It is proven with the foot casts that show ridge detail, vocalizations that have been taped, that type of thing.

    DWA, have you obtained a copy of Christopher Murphy’s book, and actually looked at the stills I have mentioned (on a fairly recent thread here, about posteriors)? If you haven’t please do.

  57. Roger Knights responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster said (#13):
    “its odd that the horses supposedly got spooked by Patty’s scent and yet were still willing to follow its tracks soon after”
    ========================

    I’m just speaking from a recollection of what I’ve read, but I’m pretty sure that the odor, if there was any prior to the sighting, was faint, and that it didn’t bother the horses much, if at all, prior to rounding the house-high root-ball that concealed Patty. It was the sight of that creature at close distance –30 feet or so–that did 90% of the frightening–in conjunction, perhaps, with a linking of the odor to the sight. The odor was most noticeable, according to P&G, when they followed the creature across the creek.

    Only two of the horses bolted. By the time they’d been chased down, half a mile away, and brought back to the site, at least 20 minutes had passed, and the odor had mostly dissipated, according to P&G.

  58. mystery_man responds:

    CrimsonFox- Yes, an animal can remain hidden even when people are out looking for it. That is true enough, but remember that those animals that you are looking for HAVE been found at one point or other, and HAVE been filmed. They have left behind indisputable physical evidence and many creatures of fewer numbers than the sasquatch is thought to have are nevertheless catalogued by science. The odds are likely slim that you are going to find a revolutionary new type of bug while digging around your yard. It may be new to you, but it has likely been classified before.

    Of course I don’t mean to imply that there are no new creatures out there to be discovered. That could not be further from the truth. But the thing is the sasquatch is NOT particularly elusive, apparently. It is NOT unseen. It has been seen by thousands. It has left footprints all over, and been filmed in countless low quality clips, and had its alleged calls tape recorded many times. To say that Bigfoot is a rarely seen, reclusive creature that is hidden away in the forest to only rarely be glimpsed to me is counter to what the large amount of circumstantial evidence seems to tell us. Yet for all of that, this one clip is all that we have to show as far as clear footage goes, and I find that odd.

    This is not a new type of animal that is hidden away in the farthest, remote places of the world. It is seen near settlements, near roads, in campsites, yet no fully irrefutable evidence remains in its wake. It is not like the discovery of a new species of animal that has only just been seen for the first time. Sasquatch has been seen time and time again and even searched for by specially equipped groups.

    Now I think that Bigfoot could exist, and that it’s feasible that a creature of that sort could adapt to and survive and remain hidden in the vast reaches of the North American wilderness. But it is not hidden and sometimes even seems downright bold or nonchalant in the presence of humans. Patty does not seem to be in any great hurry to run away from the naked humans. So if sasquatch is seen by so many and is so apparently nonchalant, then why no clear clips like this, but rather blobsquatch after blobsquatch? I am not trying to be unreasonable here, but as an open minded skeptic, these things honestly make me think and are things for which I have not seen satisfying answers.

    What bothers me and keeps me on the fence is that despite these things, even with all of the sightings and encounters, no irrefutable evidence acceptable by mainstream science nor truly remarkable film other than PG has come forward. Science is going to need that kind of evidence as it has with the other animals we know of that might seem to be hidden to you on a hiking trip, yet are nevertheless recognized as real species by the world at large. Bigfoot is not beyond the burden of proof. This is not a creature that fits into the general knowledge of North American wildlife as we know it. A new type of wolf would be an amazing find, let alone an 8 foot, hairy, bipedal hominid new to science and unrepresented by any other type of animals known to exist today. Yes, some animals are accepted on videos alone, but they are often creatures that are already represented by similar species and do not particularly pose huge jumps to accept as real, or creatures definitively known to have existed before. Sasquatch does not really have that luxury. Extraordinary claims require…..

    We need that evidence, and as much as I love the PG footage and am impressed by it, I think it unfortunately just isn’t enough. For those who want real, undeniable evidence to show the naysayers that they are wrong, I think it is probably imperative to move beyond this one forty year old clip and dig up something new to show the world.

  59. red_pill_junkie responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster wrote:

    Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).

    I saw that video yesterday too. As I wrote I’m 30-40% convinced of the P-G film, and I’m not saying I believe completely that this other video is real.

    But I too, felt there were some strong ressemblances, in the posture of the creature, and also the type of hair.

    I’ll say something in favor of the P-G film: those other ape suits that have been shown here, including the one used by the BBC, lack a very crucial factor to match Patty, and it’s not just the length of the hairs, but the sheen, the lustrous coat that seems to come from a live animal. Those other suits? you can plainly see that is fake hair, they have no luster, they don’t reflect the light of the sun. That is a very important thing in the P-G film and we shouldn’t overlook it.

    And this new video has some of that too. For about a second I admit; it’s way too short and it conspicously shows the creature amid the trees so you never have a complete shot of it (unlike the P-G, which IF a fake, was much bolder in its attempt to fool the audience)

    So this brings me to a question to you fellow crypto-hobbyists: After 40 years, which other video evidence could be compared (or even trump) the P-G film from its position of Best Evidence? Any suggestions?

  60. Roger Knights responds:

    Greenmartian2007 wrote (#39):
    “d) Wasn’t there already articles about a guy claiming to be the person who was in the suit? What about that? Why not have a thread about that facet? He was even on some TV program, and underwent a polygraph. The polygraph examination indicated he was not lying.”
    ***********************

    The long answer to this question would be immense. I’ve read several books on polygraphs and have only a fuzzy sense of how it’ll shape up when I’m done. The short answer is that:

    1. Patterson passed a lie detector test–and it was administered under independent auspices.
    2. CIA-spy Aldrich passed a lie detector test. And so did 5 of 6 of Travis Walton’s supporting witnesses to his purported UFO abduction.
    3. Few countries other than the US employ lie detectors–even their spy agencies make little use of them. If they were reliable, that would hardly be the case.
    4. The National Academy issued a book-length evaluation (which I’ve bought but only dipped into) that found them to be unreliable.
    5. The guy in the suit refers to his 2nd examiners as the “world famous expert, Dr. Ed Gelb.” He administered the test on national TV (on his show, “Lie Detector,”—now defunct). “Doc.” Gelb supposedly owes his doctorate to a notorious Missouri diploma mill, according to George W. Maschke. Here’s the link to his article, with the details.
    6. There are simple ways to beat the lie detector, described in a 1991 paperback book from Paladin Press, “Deception Detection,” by Charles Clifton.
    7. It’s standard procedure to allow polygraph test scrolls to be examined by other experts. But the supposed guy in the suit gave me a classic run-around when I attempted to have the output-scroll of his polygraph analyzed by another lie detector expert–a person recommended by the expert who’d administered the original exam, BTW, not some hired gun I’d recruited myself. The suit-guy told me, and my examiner, that he’d tell his lawyer to release the scroll to him, but the lawyer then refused to return the examiner’s calls.

    ———
    Greenmartian2007 wrote (#39):
    “Wasn’t there a Mark Chorvinsky (please excuse if I have the wrong person–an editor with Strange magazine) article about the guy in the suit also?”
    ***********************

    No, the Chorvinsky article conflicts with the guy in the suit, because it describes a suit of a different character, made by a different person (John Chambers) than the person (Philip Morris) and suit endorsed by the current suit-claimant.

    ——–
    Greenmartian2007 wrote (a few posts above):
    “I also mention that there is … information … that the guy who said he was in the suit, said he was in that suit. Deal with those issues, if you so choose.”
    ***********************

    Take a look at my Amazon-review, “A Tale of Two Suits,” of the book (“The Making of Bigfoot”) that presents the suit-guy’s case, at three page-downs.

    That review was written 2.5 years ago. Since then I’ve expanded the number of points against him by 50%. If you want to read a thread containing most of my subsequent criticisms of his claims, start here.

    The first post I’ve linked to contains this quotation from Michael Dennett:
    “I think Roger Knights has raised some valid questions about Heironimus. He has examined every aspect of the Heironimus story as well as checking into his background. He has convinced me, at the very least, that Heironimus has not satisfactorily explained the questions Knights has put forward.”

    Stay tuned, there’s more in the hopper.

  61. Roger Knights responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster (post #46, 9/20 at 9:19 PM) made reference to numerous inexpensive masks. This is a beautiful theory, but the ugly fact that kills it (pretty much) is that Patty’s lips & mouth open and close more than once in the latest enhanced / clarified versions of the PGF, such as those produced by Owen Caddy & MK Davis.

  62. proriter responds:

    This is going nowhere. Those who believe in the film will believe. Those who don’t won’t. The P-G has never been independently corroborated and never will be, and the question of whether it was faked is unanswerable. For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on.

    What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.

  63. monster_hunter9895 responds:

    The comparison is really good. If is it known that horses detected something, it should be something unusual. Animals are a lot sensitive, not like us.

  64. DWA responds:

    greenmartian2007: as to your comments.

    a) I’m not the one who has to deal here. Experts in relevant subject fields have pronounced this a genuine animal. You need to address them, not me. Skeptics seem to continually ignore this inconvenient problem. They don’t seem to think they need to deal with expert testimony when it conflicts with the pat answers they’ve concocted in their heads. Despite your crack-of-doom pronouncement, the jury is still very, very much out as to the provenance of this film. (How in the world otherwise could we still be having this back and forth? After 40 YEARS?) Proponents have, however, done far more to convince me that it is real than skeptics have done to convince me that it is fake. And once again, no testimony has come from an alleged faker that has been worth the ink it took to print, much less the hot air it took to say. That is a fact, easily discernable by anyone who values evidence. It is not an opinion.

    b) I don’t let True Believers – or Nonbelievers – soil this debate. I banish them at the door. It is all about evidence. So far, nothing has come from anyone sufficient to make me lean toward fakery as the source of the film. That’s not my fault; it’s theirs. And yes. If you say it is fake, you must say why, or you have no opinion worthy of my consideration. (Another inconvenient little problem skeptics choose to ignore.) If one is intelligent at all, it must cause one considerable intellectual discomfort not to be able to defend one’s position with a single fact. Proponents have done much in this wise; skeptics, less than nil.

    c) This film can’t prove anything. No film can; this is the fundamental reason that science, virtually without exception, rejects the concept of photographic holotypes. (Yes, it’s happened. You can count them, I believe, on one hand.)

    I have reviewed stills of the Patterson film for 40 years. It has always made me wonder what the heck that thing is – something that, for the record, every ape suit I have ever seen failed to do the instant I saw it.

    Here’s my opinion: if you categorically believe the Patterson film fake, you are acting on the basis of conscious or unconscious bias or blind faith. You are not – you cannot be – dealing in facts.

    And I take that back. The above is a FACT. It is not an opinion.

  65. Sergio responds:

    proriter wrote:

    “For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on. What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.”

    I don’t see that demonstrated here at all. I see people who seem to go to great lengths to try to debunk the film, or pronounce it a counterfeit, even in the face of contradictions and what makes sense.

    I don’t WANT to “believe” in it; it is what it is: footage of an unidentified strange-looking figure that fits the description of a bigfoot. I happen to think, based on a whole list of reasons, that it’s real. I think it looks real and it has nothing to do with desires or needs.

    Also, no one, that I can detect, seems to be hanging their hat on it. The blog had to do with Loren’s confidence in the validity of the film. Others agreed with him, for some of the same reasons and for different reasons.

    The main point that always seems to get lost in all this is that if the film is indeed legitimate, well, the mystery ended, right there and then, in 1967. So, that makes the footage is quite relevant to the question of whether or not the creature exists. The fact that the footage has never been debunked nor replicated, in my mind, only lends to the likelihood of its legitimacy.

    For the person who considers the matter of bigfoot’s existence out of the question, or even in all likelihood a myth, well of course it’s gotta be a fake; there is very little or no room for an alternative that is acceptable to such a mindset.

  66. DWA responds:

    proriter:

    “For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on.”

    Then don’t. God knows I don’t.

    Here’s what the Patterson film is, and no, I didn’t say it, you did: a fascinating enigma that will forever challenge anyone with a brain who sees it. That’s what makes it so invaluable. Each succeeding generation of scientists and researchers has at least one and usually more than one Jane Goodall, George Schaller, John Bindernagel, Jeff Meldrum, Daris Swindler, or Darren Naish who looks at this and says: the people who categorically dismiss this film are wrong. I don’t know when the interest will snowball into a serious search by seriously funded professionals – something that, I don’t care what you hear or think, has never happened – but someday, it will. Intelligent people are funny like that.

    “What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.”

    I’m always fascinated, as you are, by people who pull on three-sixty blinders and click their heels together three times while chanting: P/G IS FAKE, P/G IS FAKE, P/G IS FAKE.

    Oh. You were talking about the OTHER true believers. Um, them too.

  67. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    Lyndon:

    I’m glad that you don’t think it’s real. Sadly, there are people out there who do.

    In regards to your reference to Janos Prohaska, you might want to go to Youtube and search for a video called “Hollywood Magic” that was uploaded by “darkwinglh.” In it, Mr. Prohaska goes into detail on why he doesn’t think Patty was a costume, his main reason being that it would be “too hard” to make since it would take a long time to glue on all the hair. Amazingly, he follows that up with an estimate of the amount of time it would take! His only other argument is that it looks real to him.

    You should also look up “Godzilla Numa Numa” by “Godzilla2themaxx.” Notice how the actor in the suit moves quite smoothly (and quickly) in the video. Although Godzilla was portrayed as being kinda slow-moving during the early Godzilla movies, this changed during the 70’s. Why? Because Godzilla movies were being released with showings at a children’s film festival called the “Champion Festival” in mind. This resulted in cutting corners and less of a focus on realism in favor of action (although some of the 60’s movies did have some intentionally silly stuff in them). Granted, I don’t know the weights of the various suits (other than that they were heavy) or the exact size of the actor(s) in them and the sizing doesn’t always match up to Patty, but it shows that people can move quite well in heavy costumes.

    I could be remembering this wrong, but I once read that monster costumes like that made it so that movements that seem exaggerated and goofy-looking without the suit would look (relatively) slower and more natural due to the suit. Also worthy of note is this article, which details how they made design changes to the suit used in “Godzilla: Final Wars” to increase movement by using different materials, slimming some features, and making the dorsal plates smaller. Patty lacks a tail or dorsal plates. Also notice how large Godzilla’s “slimmer” legs and thighs are…

  68. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    Roger Knights:

    Thanks for the imput. However, I’m having trouble seeing how an odor can be “faint” and yet be smelled from the distance away that you give. I’m also not that familiar with horses, so I don’t know if they have a “range” of how far away something has to be to spook them. I’ve heard many variations on the story that I have no idea which one to view as the “right one.”

    Also, a moving mouth doesn’t rule out a mask. There are several ways to make a mask with a moving mouth ranging from the very complicated to the very simple. This is a complicated one, designed to make the face look inhuman. Obviously, a Patty suit couldn’t require something like that. Dfoot touched on how it could have been done here. He noted other masks that could’ve been cannibalized to make the details for a Patty mask here (It also notes that for the open-mouthed version, he was unable to obtain a vintage Don Post caveman mask and had to make due with a similar-looking modern one).

    Here’s fun experiment to try: This is a “Ghastly Geezer” mask; I got mine at a CVS for about $5 a few years back and my younger brother discovered that he could make the mouth move by positioning/moving his chin inside the mask’s chin. I note this because the mask was not seemingly designed to be a “moving mouth mask” (It certainly wasn’t advertized on the packaging) and because my chin doesn’t fill out the mask’s chin enough and I’d need a prosthetic of some sort to pull off the same effect.

  69. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    mystery_man:

    Thanks for the compliment. Although I know that using them makes my posts take longer than normal to show up, I feel that it’s important to give visual examples whenever possible.

    Oh, and thanks for clearing up what you meant about other footage “approaching the quality” of the film. I agree with you on that and I’m glad you liked my information . The only Patty-looking visual material that I’m aware of is a “pregnant Bigfoot on a log” picture. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, check out this picture (which may or may not be colorized)and this article (which has smaller, black and white versions). Although I disagree with the article about the possibility of Wallace being involved in the P/G footage, I do find it disturbing that he was able to pull off a similar costume.

    red_pill_junkie:

    Some have theorized that actual animal hair was used in the creation of the suit and I think I’ve read others saying that something about the light reflecting off the hair indicates that it’s a fake to them, so I can’t say what the deal is here. However, you’re right about that detail needing to be factored into a serious recreation attempt.

  70. mystery_man responds:

    I am a little more understanding of the skeptical point of view than some here seem to be. I feel that it is important to point out that there are few skeptics that flat out deny Bigfoot’s possible existence. In fact, I’ve found many (myself included) are quite open to the idea of sasquatch being out there. Likewise, there are skeptics of the PG footage that do not outright say that it is a 100% hoax.

    To me it is not the biological possibility of Bigfoot existing that is on trial here, but rather the lack of hard, independently verifiable evidence that is required in any scientific field to back up wondrous claims or indeed any new theory as to how the world works. Sure Bigfoot COULD be out there, indeed there is circumstantial evidence to support it, but we need more to show this is the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don’t think science is out to get sasquatch, trying to prove Bigfoot DOESN’T exist as much as ask that we prove it DOES. Isn’t that what the end goal of cryptozoology is, to bring these hidden creatures to light and to understand what they are, their place in this world? So to me many skeptics do not shun sasquatch, but in fact feel that Bigfoot may indeed exist. They are not necessarily against or denying the notion, but for them it is far from proven, certainly not by a 40 year old film clip. I disagree with skeptics that dismiss possible avenues of research, but Bigfoot is typically not an impossibility for them.

    I think that most people here will agree that it is highly likely that if Bigfoot exists, then it is a physical, zoological phenomena of the natural world rather than a supernatural entity and in that sense it should be studied and verified by the same processes by which scientists study the rest of how this universe works. That requires incontrovertible evidence and application of the scientific method. I think even steadfast proponents of Bigfoot must be aware of this to some extent. Marvels of the past, sometimes seemingly magical at the time yet now taken for granted, have had light shed on them through the powerful tool of science and have all inevitably, sometimes painfully, undergone this sort of scientific process. That process needs good evidence to make it move forward. If even a small amount of unassailable evidence that was concrete and unclouded by opinions or assumptions was presented to the scientific community, I think we would see an increase in research in this area. What biologist WOULDN’T want to be in on such a groundbreaking find? Let’s get that evidence.

    I think one the problems that arises and causes an unfortunate lack of cooperation in getting to the bottom of this mystery between those that believe and those that are not convinced is the standard of evidence which is acceptable to them and which lines of questioning are feasible. Yes, many things point to the idea that sasquatch COULD exist, but science needs more than that, and doesn’t have the luxury of getting funding or bringing up these sorts of claims to their peers without some darn good substantiation. Skeptics often bring forth possibilities that point against sasquatch and a need for strict evidence that may not sit well with those that are convinced that sasquatch and the PG footage is real and to me that causes unnecessary flaming at times. But I do not think it’s a bad thing to want this marvel to be brought up to the scrutiny of science as have marvels of the past. I agree with the sentiment that if sasquatch is real, which it may be, then we should work to prove it in a scientific manner becoming of accepted science. Any strange video clip like this of a spectacular animal like sasquatch would have to follow the same rules, it is what is demanded by science.

    The PG film is amazing and to me makes a compelling case for Bigfoot, but why are some proponents so willing to write off or get irritated at skeptical ideas or their desire for something more than a film clip? How is a desire to scientifically gathering the tangible evidence possibly something to get angry about? I for one am all for seeing the phenomena from different angles. I feel it is not an offense or attack to challenge proponent ideas, but rather should be a chance to exchange views, see other possibilities and try to come to some sort of consensus. This consensus may never be reached with the PG footage due to a lack of any concrete evidence to show without a doubt that Patty is a real creature, coupled with some people’s steadfast determination that it is. However, I really think that proponents and skeptics are striving towards the same goal, to illuminate this mystery once and for all.

  71. mystery_man responds:

    AtomicMrEmonster- Although your posts take a little while to pop up, they are worth it for the visual material presented and the reasonable, alternative skeptical take they provide. Since I read every single post in it’s entirety and make sure I catch up on every one, I’m sure not to miss them and look forward to them. I really hope people here are taking the time to at least actually take a look at what you present and entertain your viewpoint whether they agree or not.

    Lots of good ideas on both sides here, folks. Great discussion!

  72. DWA responds:

    mystery_man:

    You say “I am a little more understanding of the skeptical point of view than some here seem to be.”

    You and I have been here on this site long enough that I know that

    (a) you’re talking about true skepticism, the kind of which I don’t see much from so-called skeptics on this site on this topic;

    (b) you know that I am a skeptic, as the word is truly defined; and

    (c) ergo, you’re not talking about me.

    But for those who may not get this yet, yours is still a post to read.

    My problem with P/G is that so many believe, on the basis of no evidence, that it was faked.

    Not to use Atomic as a punching bag here, after all he’s more enlightened than most of the so-called skeptics I’ve read here. But even he says things like “I’m glad that you don’t think it’s real. Sadly, there are people out there who do.”

    Well, sadly, Atomic, those people have more evidence to go on. For everything you have put up, you have offered no more evidence that this film was faked than all of the evidence that is offered by proponents to which skeptics say, nice, but it ain’t proof. You can’t jump from that stuff to a real animal.

    Against the “evidence” that, sure, people with money and time can make cool suits is the expert testimony of people with advanced degrees in relevant fields – for the skeptic, an open-and-shut, when it backs his case – who say IT IS REAL. It still rankles me that people who consider this fake continue to simply ignore the people against whom they should be arguing. Unfortunately, of course, if you’re arguing against them, I’m going with them. If you argued for the sasquatch and they argued against, I’d go with them, because they have the chops. “EVIDENS KLUBB!!! NO BELEEEFS ALOWD!!!!!” :-P (I feel a sudden need to build a treehouse.)

    And on to chops.

    See, scientists who think the sasquatch does not exist are not using their chops. I have never heard one of them say this animal ain’t real without using the same unsophisticated “arguments” that ignorant laymen use. If anyone has heard a scientific slant on the nonexistence of the animal I would love to read it. I never have. I have seen scientists take whacks at it. But their training as scientists seems to desert them when it comes to this. They concoct “arguments” that I rip to ribbons in minutes, with cool logic and deductive reasoning. That shouldn’t happen. Not if they are using their chops.

    If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been coming to a conclusion over the many discussions we’ve been having on this site of the P/G film. Its endless capacity to generate this kind of back and forth counts as evidence to me, evidence so strong that here’s my conclusion: if your mind is closed on P/G, it is closed on the sasquatch. If you don’t think so, change your mind, because you are wrong.

    Once again: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE – AT ALL – THAT THIS WAS FAKED. If you think that it was, you are no better intellectually than those who pray for the aliens to dump ten of them into Times Square because Earth Must Know! You have jumped to a conclusion – almost invariably twisting yourself into logical knots to get there – with nothing to back you up. You are 32 inches tall, and entering this ride without being accompanied by an adult.

    Don’t mean to sound condescending there. But some folks need a cold bucket of water to chase out the totally unconscious preconceptions that have them saying some of the silly things they do. Stay WITH me here. If you think P/G is fake, you think so because you cannot accept the possibility that it’s real. That is, you don’t think the sasquatch is real. You are doing what the philosophers call “begging the question” (and which I call “The General Implausibility Theorem”). You are accepting as fact what you are attempting to prove, and using that “fact” in your very proof. You are saying that P/G isn’t real because, well, well, it, it, it,….CAN’T BE!

    Look at Atomic. (Sorry, Atomic, I have to do this.) Look at all the time he spends dredging up the possibilities for ways that could have been hoaxed. Atomic: if you spent one tenth the time and effort on researching Patterson and Gimlin that you have on this, you would, at the very least, rule them out as the hoaxers. I mean, it’s conceivable. That the earth’s core could explode, incinerating us all, if five minutes, is conceivable. But based on what you know, would you bet on it? You sure would not bet on P and G as hoaxers after doing the homework, which – clearly, from what I have read – no one who implicates them has done.

    In my opinion, m_m, a skeptic looks at P/G and says: that could have been faked. I want to look at the evidence, and see where it leads me. I want to ask myself whether any conceivable player could have been up to this. Does that theory wash? If I wind up with no more evidence for one side than the other? (Or, as in the actual case, as I have already pointed out, much more learned opinion for its reality than for a hoax?) Then I want someone to get into that country and do some research.

    I can see scientists saying: I don’t know. But it sure isn’t proven, and I can’t accept it until it is. What I cannot see is a scientist saying, that’s bunkum – and forsaking his training, utterly, as he “explains” why. When scientists spread ignorance they become weapons against the advance of civilization.

    I can see scientists saying that we have too much on our plate right now. I know without Googling it that many of them wish somebody would just run off on this trail, but heck, where is anybody going to get the backing? Well, we won’t get anywhere on this until scientists engage the backing, until they link up, the ones who think there could be something here, and start collectively raising the question: why can’t we spare the time and effort for this? What that is going on in zoology right now is more important? Another bird of paradise? A new pillbug? Another mouse lemur?

    Of course (Ben), there’s a reason they don’t. Stark fear for their careers.

    Skepticism – true skepticism, the kind you see from me and several others on this site who may sound like proponents to you, but that’s just because you don’t recognize true skepticism – says: let’s look. It does not say: look, or even advocate a look, and you are crazy.

    Real skepticism? Needed.

    Naysaying TrueBelieverism? Done with that.

    Believe me, m_m, I am quite thoroughly acquainted with what calls itself skepticism…and what really is.

    But I know you know that. ;-)

    (Tidbit: the mastermind of history’s greatest deception was arrested for not returning his camera on time. Un hunh. Suuuuuure.)

  73. DWA responds:

    greenmartian2007:

    “DWA, have you obtained a copy of Christopher Murphy’s book, and actually looked at the stills I have mentioned (on a fairly recent thread here, about posteriors)? If you haven’t please do.”

    Oh I got it all right, shortly after it came out. Making sure folks understand this:

    1) Murphy once thought there was a crippling anomaly in P/G. He has since totally retracted that view and – as this book makes very clear – is an unabashed advocate for the film as a record of an unknown animal.

    2) greenmartian, I think you are making an error that many others do when it comes to unknown phenomena – presuming something is fake because it looks like nothing you’ve seen. On that premise, the birds of paradise are fake; who would make a bird like THAT? There is nothing – close examination of these stills would reveal to anyone – about the figure, butt or otherwise, that couldn’t be totally reasonable, understandable and explainable for an animal like this.

    There are a LOT of butts out there, too many for us to rule one out just because it looks like the wrong junk in the trunk. No ifs. Ands. Or but(t)s.

  74. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I certainly was not directing my comment at you, just at anyone who may lash out at those like myself who may sometimes turn a critical eye upon the film. I think you know my stance on this as well, so I am surprised you seem to think I could be closed minded about sasquatch. To me, there is nothing wrong at all with a questing, questioning mind and that includes looking at alternative possibilities to “PG and Bigfoot are real, end of story.” I do not think the question of the PG footage has been put to rest yet and I want to explore the matter further. I want to make it clear that my mind is not closed on this film and I think a lot of people who question the film do not have closed minds either.

    I actually think I have quite a good grasp of what a “true skeptic” is. For sure I disagree with those who dismiss the possibility of sasquatch outright without even considering the possibilities. Everything I have said says “let’s look”, and it even goes farther and says “lets look and put it to rest with better evidence.” But for me “let’s look” doesn’t always have to be looking at reasons why the sasquatch must be real. I am not sure how what I said has translated into me advocating a “if you look, your crazy” mentality. I think you know I don’t think that.

    Once again, in my opinion a skeptic can hold the positive evidence of sasquatch in mind, and yet question things to the contrary that have not been satisfactorily answered at the same time. I do have questions and reservations about whether Bigfoot exists, but does that mean I am dismissing it? No. There is nothing on sasquatch that I am willing to embrace fully and say without question “It exists”, but rather things that point to a good possibility it exists which I think we need to work harder towards building evidence upon which is not the same as blowing sasquatch off. I think real science is trying to uncover the wonders of the world, not bury them. How is that a misunderstanding of skepticism and a closed mind? Why can’t someone question these things and not be labeled a debunker? Make no mistake that I am aware of what proponents are and what skeptics are.

    As for scientists not out looking because of their careers, that is unfortunate. But if evidence of the type that I have said is required was brought to bear, there would perhaps no longer be any danger to any careers because sasquatch would likely become the find of the century. Indeed it would be career MAKING. But yet that crucial evidence to make this happen is lacking. Those scientists are out looking for new “mouse lemurs” because everything we know supports their existence and whether you believe in them or not, the evidence is there for anyone to look at and it is indisputable. It is something that they are trying to build our knowledge of through proper methods. Do you really think that there is a scientist out there who wouldn’t drop what they are doing and go off to study sasquatch if they thought the evidence was persuasive enough to get funding and respect from their peers? If the evidence for sasquatch was so undeniable, why would they not pursue it instead of a “pill bug”? I think that perhaps the case for sasquatch is not as concrete and watertight as it needs to be for this to happen. Once again, not all scientists are evil, close minded people out to deny sasquatch, they just need more to go on than some might realize. It’s not easy. Scientists cannot always go off chasing whatever catches their fancy, they need to convince others that it is something worth perusing and funding. I study animals in Japan and I am sure that as good as I am with known animals, I would not get funding for searching for, say, a Honshu wolf, without some real good substantiation.

    I think the required evidence for sasquatch could be out there and that we need to find it. I also am willing to examine theories that point to the possibility of sasquatch not existing, but at no point think anyone is crazy for wanting to look at the evidence. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, but the PG footage, as good as it is, is not that evidence to me. It is amazing and it’s a good possible lead, but not proof. I think this field deserves to go out and dig for what it needs to push cryptozoology into the limelight. Once again, the biological possibility of sasquatch is not on trial here, and scientists don’t all necessarily say it can’t be real.

    I do recognize true skepticism and I see myself as an open minded skeptic. It is weighing all available theories, not just the ones that fit one’s own agendas. Both sides of the fence are guilty of this, I feel, and it doesn’t do much for the search. Circumstantial evidence for sasquatch is there, now if sasquatch really exists (which I think it might), seal the deal. I don’t believe I am unreasonable to want to increase the pursuit of that without having to embrace PG and other circumstantial evidence as 100 percent real.

  75. DWA responds:

    And I should point out another logical fallacy, one I’ve seen a number of times on this site, and hadn’t thought enough about, until now.

    When I talk about how much evidence there is, and about how there is more evidence for the sas than there is for animals we know to exist, I get the reply, and have gotten it more than once: Yeah. But those other animals are known to exist.

    Logical fallacy. It needs to be woodshedded, big time.

    “Known to exist” means that those animals have been confirmed by science, i.e., that science has evidence at hand that proves to its satisfaction the animal’s existence. Well, science can’t use its refusal to follow up on evidence as an excuse to not look, says here. If there is more evidence for an unconfirmed animal than there is for many we know about, then clearly evidence is simply not being followed up to a conclusion. One cannot use “we are incredulous, and lazy to boot” as an excuse for not doing the work of science.

    Once again: I am not woodshedding scientists who – for a variety of reasons done to death here – are not personally looking. And I am certainly not woodsheding people who haven’t accumulated the chops, tenure and income security to come out and say what they believe. The ones I am beating on are the ones who sneer at something about which they are profoundly ignorant. For example, the ones who gathered to watch P/G, about 40 years ago, and all came out of the room saying that was faked.

    Shame on them.

    The first thing that needs to happen before the search for this animal finally begins in earnest is that scientists need to start acting like scientists. And I feel totally free to lecture their lazy butts on this.

    Class.

    Where we have been saying: This animal probably doesn’t exist

    we now say

    This animal’s existence has not been proven yet.

    Where we have been saying: All the evidence that exists is some fuzzy video

    we now say

    I have educated my lazy self, and now see that not only is one piece of video not fuzzy at all, but there is a ton of other evidence that could be followed up on, more in fact than we have for species we accept.

    or, if we are ignorant of the evidence

    I may be wrong. But I simply don’t have enough evidence in front of me to say whether the sasquatch exists, one way or the other.

    There are too many ignorant scientists out there. My lecture to all of you – including that ignoramus physicist who called for Jeff Meldrum’s tenure on a stick – is: IF YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE TOPIC, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

    Thank you. Science – which has suffered from your kind long enough – thanks you too.

  76. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    DWA:

    You seem to be confused, my “I’m glad you don’t think it’s real” comment was directed towards a proponent of the P/G footage who said that the Harley Hoffman footage was a fake. Said footage was used to promote (and might’ve been part of) a mockumentary about searching for scientific evidence of Santa Claus. Looking at the context of that footage, it’s absurd to think that it could be real.

    As for my “research,” most of it is stuff I stumble across in my spare time while reading about cryptozoology, special effects, costumes, etc. I just copy-paste anything that I find interesting in case I want to see or use it in the future; I don’t go hunting for it. Others, like “Godzilla Numa Numa,” are just stuff that I like and already knew about that I found a way to relate to the discussion. My only real research for this particular discussion was looking to see how many styles of Don Post Tor masks there were and to see if I could find a picture of the Don Post caveman mask; everything else was off the top of my head. In my mind, I should try answering people who ask about how such a suit could be done if I have an inkling of something related to it. After all, aren’t I giving them what they want?

    I have done research about Patterson and Gimlin (there’s a vague reference to it in my response to Roger Knights) and I’m surprised at what I’ve found. Patterson once referred to Patty as a “son of a buck,” his references to Patty having drooping breasts match the Roe sighting, but not what we see on film, and the changes given in the accounts of what happened. Of the two, Bob Gimlin seems to have been better to sticking to his story, even to the point of openly contradicting Roger at events. I find it very odd that after Bob Gimlin did this a few times, he later stopped appearing with Roger Patterson or talking about Bigfoot until after Patterson’s death.

    Someone wants to go on a serious Bigfoot expedition? Fine by me; go nuts (I gave a fundraising idea, remember?). All I ask is that they don’t give a tatzelworm-style “We couldn’t find any solid evidence, but since there are a lot of stories about it, it must’ve been a real animal that went extinct” rationalization if they couldn’t find anything after several attempts.

  77. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Oh and I apologize if for any reason I’ve misunderstood what you’ve directed at me in your post above. :)

  78. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    I just thought of something: Has anyone ever made a picture that overlayed the BBC suit over Patty to see how they differ in bulk? And is it just me, or does Roger Patterson’s bare foot look kinda like the track cast next to it? It isn’t a perfect match since it seems to be a right foot and Patterson’s left foot is bare, but I found it interesting.

    I also recently stumbled across this discussion. I think some of the Youtube videos are too poor quality to get a good comparison going, but I must admit that this seemed compelling. I’m not saying it’s the same suit, just that it’s interesting to me.

    On a lighter note, I recommend that you all search for “cadbury gorilla” on Youtube to see a funny (recent) ad featuring a cool gorilla suit. It’s amazing how realistic (and flexible) the suit is.

  79. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I’d like to get something clear about what I said about “known animals”. I wouldn’t be so fast to dismiss the achievement of having and studying animals that are “known to exist”. Remember that those animals were not always known, and they had to be brought to the attention of science too using scientific methods. Those animals are KNOWN to exist because there was physical substantiation brought forward for them. This is what I want to see properly done with sasquatch. It is not logical fallacy, it is wanting the same thing done about cataloguing sasquatch as has been done with the myriad of wildlife we do know about.

  80. mystery_man responds:

    I will say one thing and that is that the circumstantial evidence for sasquatch, while not proof, is actually fairly expansive. It seems to me that it begs to be delved into more deeply by well funded parties. I guess it is odd that no one looks into it more than they currently are, and I can see that mode of thinking. I for one, would truly love to see more field scientists take notice of what’s on offer and pursue it to a possible concrete conclusion. If i had the means and the funding, and more anthropology background, I know I would want to give it a crack!

  81. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Sorry to ramble on like this, but I thought I would put forward my thoughts on what you said about animals that are known to exist as it pertains to evidence of sasquatch. Bear with me.

    First of all, it is extremely rare for a new species to be actually catalogued and accepted as real in the absence of a physical specimen or holotype. Those few that are widely embraced without a body or other irrefutable physical evidence are largely animals that are similar to what would be expected in the area or are animals that fit into established norms for the habitat. For example, a new type of pygmy hippo caught on a trail cam and lauded as a new discovery is nothing that seriously challenges modern biology as we know it. Therefore, it is safe to say that what we see in the photo has a lot of credibility as a candidate for a new species. Even then, at some point scientists are probably going to want physical confirmation for various reasons such as precise taxonomy. So even animals that seem to have less evidence than sasquatch are still able to be confidently researched as a real known animal.

    Now put forwards the idea of an unknown, bipedal, North American hominid of some sort (or ape, can anyone even be 100 percent sure?), and you have something that demands some pretty strong physical evidence. So you have a creature that somewhat challenges what we know about modern North American biology and add to that the history of known hoax attempts into the mix. What you get is a creature that is going to require presenting more than a video to be accepted. Indeed, ensuring that it is accepted as a real creature is going to require more than what is available at this point.

    Now of course, an 8 foot hominid COULD be out there. Again, no one is refusing the idea here. A lot of things support that theory and absolutely enough to warrant further research, I’d say. But this is not a new type of deer or muskrat and so the burden of proof is heavier. That is not a slight against the possibility of Bigfoot or the realism of the PG footage. It just means that it is a tall order for proof. I think that sasquatch and animals that are known to exist on seemingly less evidence is not a fair comparison. So in my opinion, I do not think it is particularly illogical to talk about creatures that are “known to exist” as opposed to sasquatch, which isn’t KNOWN to be anything at this point. Not yet anyway. Hopefully more researchers in the area will turn that around.

  82. jerrywayne responds:

    My Cards On The Table

    When I was a lad I became a Bigfoot enthusiast because of the writings of I.T. Sanderson. When the original Argosy Magazine account came out about Patterson’s film, I was enthralled and it made me a “true believer”. I would use the same arguments for the legitimacy of Patterson’s film then that I read today in posted comments here.

    Over the years I’ve changed my mind. Part of the reason is that I’ve viewed the film many, many times and found it oddly and vaguely less convincing than the color stills published in various outlets. Also I begin finding references here and there suggesting the caution one should have concerning the character of Patterson (He was originally presented to us as just a cowboy and Bigfoot enthusiast. Accounts omitted the fact that he was known locally as something of a con-artist).

    Also, there seemed to be a paradox concerning Bigfoot that presented itself over the span of time. Bigfoot was originally perceived as a seldom, if ever, seen creature whose documented sightings could virtually be counted on one’s fingers. (Its elusive and shy ways were plausible reasons why it had not be taken and remained a cryptid.) Yet, today, Bigfoot’s range and visibility have increased geometrically to include areas that have no documented “wild man” sightings to speak of. This suggests to me that we are dealing in the realm of myth and legend, rather than flesh and blood.

    And, the recent skeptical treatments of the Patterson film, decades after the free ride that advocates have enjoyed via books and documentaries, has given me further reasons to change my opinion about the film.

    Loren’s Case

    Our Host’s modest case for the legitimacy of Patterson’s film is a welcome respite from the too often hyperbolic verbiage attending to the film. Loren refreshingly avoids the usual exaggerations, such as “Patterson must have been a Speilberg and an Einstein to create such a masterpiece”, or “Disney couldn’t have created the image on Patterson’s film, not even with the budget of THAT DARN CAT!”

    However, like Ben, I find some of Loren’s points very weak, almost non-points. Some of his points beg the question. Of course, if Patterson and Gimlin (with a third man) were involved in a hoax, they would create a plausible storyline to go along with the film. This mere fact eliminates three of our Host’s seven points!

    There have been practicing scientists that have accepted the Patterson film as real and were or are its advocates (such as Sanderson, Grantz, and Meldrum). Of course, this is not the same as said scientists verifying the Patterson film.

    “Contemporary sightings” from that area in the 1950’s should be examined more than they have been. I would like to see more information about the sightings. We do know of self-confessed hoaxers in the area.

    Other problems with Loren’s case have been ably addressed by others above.

    Two Points to Consider

    I have given my reasons on another post why I now doubt the Patterson film. Here are a couple of more.

    1. After the film.

    One of the main concerns with the Patterson film initially was the subject’s size. Generally, it was thought that if it really was a 7ft. tall creature, it would lend credibility to Patterson’s film and account. Since then, many advocates have presented Patterson’s Bigfoot as truly monstrous, as in Meldrum’s book where he presents the creature as a virtual grizzly bear sized animal.

    Now, Loren has been forthright with his (I presume) revised opinion concerning the height of Patterson’s Bigfoot. In his Sept. 10 article concerning the height estimates of Patterson’s subject, he states “the Bluff Creek Bigfoot may be closer to 6 feet in height than is generally ackowledged”.
    This places Patterson’s Bigfoot firmly within the realm and possibility of a human subject. And it should be noted that a self-confessed hoaxer, Bob
    Heironimus, is 6 foot or 6 foot 1 inch.

    2. Before the film.

    Patterson’s Bigfoot has a sagittal crest. Only the gorrilla among the great apes has a sagittal crest (and this is found only in the male). Interestingly, another “maybe monster”, the Yeti, is said to have a sagittal crest. This is important because if we read and view pre-Patterson accounts and sketches of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, they do not include a sagittal crest. (One sketch of Bigfoot I remember, maybe of Ostman’s Sasquatch, reminded me more of a large gibbon instead of a gorilla or pictured images of gigantopithecus). Even Patterson’s own drawings of Roe’s and others’ Bigfoot, does not include a sagittal crest. (Sightings and sketches do present a sloping head, higher in back than front, but this is not a gorilla or Yeti type sagittal crest). So, why does Patterson’s Bigfoot have a sagittal crest?

    There are two answers I think we can give. 1. Bigfoot, even the females, have a sagittal crest as Patterson’s film shows. 2. Patterson, when he created his Bigfoot costume, used a (modified) gorilla suit with attendant sagittal crest. He probably thought this would be uncontroversial because the Yeti was popularly conceived as possessing a sagittal crest and what was Bigfoot if not “America’s Abominable Snowman”!

  83. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    jerrywayne,

    The point about the saggital crests not being on females isn’t correct, seeing as how saggital crests have been found on some of the female Bili Apes/chimps.

    But, as you noted before, the crest could also have been based on the Yeti or could have been a feature on a mask that was modified to create the costume (assuming a mask was bought/modified instead molded). Others have described the the “bump” on his Roe drawing as such a crest and the head in another Patterson drawing that I posted could be interpreted as a crest by some.

    I’ve noticed that when a detail on the suit can be compared to something on a primate, it often gets touted as showing that Patty is most likely an animal, whereas details which aren’t found on primates (or other living animal) get explained away as being something that could be exclusive to this undiscovered species. This should be kept in mind when examining details on the film’s subject.

    And let’s not forget that if a modified gorilla costume was used for a costume or if a suit was designed using information on gorillas as a “base,” it’d be natural to see some apelike details. There’s also the matter of some of the details matching up with details seen on nonliving things, such as lines on hip waders. Well, that, and whether or not the details in question are the result of the image being enlarged (as noted by the article by Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach on the Bigfoot Encounters website).

  84. DWA responds:

    Atomic:

    I wasn’t confused at all; just responding to your line.

    My advice: never – especially in a thread on P/G, especially in one with this many posts – say something like that unless you refer to what, specifically, you are talking about. I cannot be held responsible for seeing red when I see something like that on a P/G thread. Hey, nobody’s perfect. :-)

    And this deserves comment as well: “I’ve noticed that when a detail on the suit can be compared to something on a primate, it often gets touted as showing that Patty is most likely an animal, whereas details which aren’t found on primates (or other living animal) get explained away as being something that could be exclusive to this undiscovered species. This should be kept in mind when examining details on the film’s subject.”

    This tendency is totally understandable, in fact to be greatly encouraged, and no one loses any points for doing it. Anything on P/G that is consistent with anything on known primates should be cited as such. (Who wants to bet this ain’t a primate? Or, for that matter, an ape?) Nor should anything not consistent with known species detract from proponents’ case. EVERY animal is unique in some ways; it would be expected that an unconfirmed species would have unique features. I don’t for one thing understand all the harping about the unusual shape of Patty’s butt. Why would it be shaped exactly like, say, ours? Or the other apes’, which are all essentially quadrupeds? The tendency you cite is nothing other than rigorous scientific logic, hard at work. Nothing is being explained away; until we know what this is, in fact, there is no explanation, is there? What defies logic, and involves a whole lot of philosophical sleight-of-hand and, yes, explaining away, is the common skeptical presumption that it’s totally OK for this to be the only known suit of its kind, made for one use of less than a minute, which has generated, over the life of the film, to all parties, not much more than the suit had to cost to make. If that. Conceivable? Shoot, lots of outlandish stuff is conceivable. I would hope no one’s betting good money on it, though.

    Shoot, with a basic rube’s knowledge of how money works, it’s pretty obvious that the real gold mine, if this had indeed been a hoax, would have been ADMITTING IT.

    mystery_man:

    I didn’t misinterpret anything you posted. You might have misinterpreted me, though. If there is one person on this site I would put forth as an example of open-mindedness, you’re it. (I’m a close second. ;-) )

    I’m talking – as you are – about the people who call P/G fake, or “probably” fake. If you postulate the former, you must say exactly why, and your explanation must wash. If you postulate the latter, you must establish a clearly calculated percentage of probability, between 51 and 100, and show, clearly, how it was calculated. Don’t hold sas proponents to standards to which you are unwilling to hold yourself. Nothing justifies it; you lose big intellectual points for trying it. Of the pro and con sides of this debate, the smartest people I have seen are proponents. They are not rubes; they are exceedingly polite for my taste, by and large, but not stupid. They see what you’re trying; they’re just more gentlemanly than I am, and less likely to cyberdance on your face pointing out arrog-ignorance. :-D

    Upset that certain people’s – make that a LOT of people’s – narrow-mindedness, arrogance, fear, plaindamsilliness, and inability to see two sides of a proposition has delayed scientific confirmation of this species to a date probably post-dating its extinction? Angry? Bitter? ME? No WAY.

  85. DWA responds:

    m_m:

    In response to your subsequent posts, I need to clarify what I meant too.

    In my opinion, the logical fallacy is in declining to follow, or even advocate following, evidence to a conclusion because this animal isn’t confirmed, and those are. Actually, the fallacy is that saying the evidence is unworthy to follow for that reason. This totally neglects something kinda basic: Following evidence is how you get to confirmation. In my opinion, illogic led to the dismissal of P/G by the mainstream in the first place. Whatever one thinks about the sasquatch having hidden in the shadows so long (and remember, it’s not that it’s unseen, just unconfirmed), there’s P/G – looking nothing like any suit, before or since; coming in the wake of other evidence, none of that significantly followed up in the field; looking and acting like a wild animal on its home ground; and – here’s the biggest illogic of all – filmed by a guy who went into the field for weeks, specifically to find and film one! I will never understand how, with most animals, you are expected to find one when you look, and with this one, you aren’t. Only the General Implausibility Theorem (you won’t find it because it doesn’t exist) explains this. Think about it and (if you have no unconscious biases muddying your thinking) you’ll see I’m right.

    I’m not asking that scientists drop that mouse lemur (don’t; it might be the last of its kind, put it down gently) and chase sas. I’m simply requesting that they don’t open their mouths on topics on which they are ignorant except to note that they are. That’s all. Too much to ask, Einstein? Didn’t think so.

  86. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    DWA:

    Correct, there’s nothing inherently wrong with comparing details that’re seen on the filmed subject with animals. My comment was intended to show that finding matching details isn’t necessarily a “slam dunk” like some might claim it is. It goes the other way, too. Thankfully, we get to (and, technically, have to) look at other factors besides how a film’s subject looks, otherwise we’d have the nightmarish scenario where Ivan Marx’s films would still considered valid by Dr. Krantz.

  87. Alton Higgins responds:

    John Green recently commented:

    1. The man who claims to have made the costume used by Patterson has identified himself.

    2. The man who claims to have worn that suit has identified himself.

    Obviously, logic dictates that it should be a simple matter to reproduce the circumstances and images from forty years ago.

    The fact that it can’t be done speaks volumes.

    The creature shown in the film is almost certainly a genuine sasquatch, in my opinion.

  88. mystery_man responds:

    I understand DWA, and I appreciate you clarifying that. I see what you are saying. I agree with you on several points. I share your frustration with close mindedness and unwillingness to look at the evidence that is available. I also feel that there is enough to warrant more scientific investigation than is being done presently with sasquatch. I know close mindedness makes you angry and it rubs me the wrong way too. I want people to at least to consider the circumstantial evidence that we do have and to at least give the PG film a chance, even if they do not agree it is real. Pat dismissal doesn’t further any knowledge, I agree. There are leads that should absolutely be followed up on.

    Maybe my scientific background has made me somewhat rigid in some regards to sasquatch, and so maybe I am guilty of some of the things you mention. But my overall view is the same as yours. Don’t say it CAN’T exist and all of the evidence is rubbish without looking at it in depth. For me, it is a promising area of study that hasn’t been fully looked into. Sasquatch is not proven, but has the potential to be. For me, the PG footage is “perhaps fake” but by no means definitely fake in my opinion.

  89. Lyndon responds:

    Alton Higgins has summed it all up rather nicely.

    It should be a ‘simple’ matter for the aforementioned individuals to replicate the P/G footage. So why isn’t it? Because it’s the real deal?

    Yup.

  90. jerrywayne responds:

    mystery man

    Just curious: Who do you believe is the more closed minded? The skeptic who says the Patterson film is probably a hoax? Or the Bigfoot advocate who says there is no way the Patterson film is a hoax?

  91. jerrywayne responds:

    Atomic

    Thanks for the correction.

    Also, thank you for all the visual material you provide. The Patterson suit is uncanny (although I doubt Patterson created his suit in similar fashion.)

    Even when I accepted the Patterson film, I thought it looked more Yeti like than previous accounts and sketches of Bigfoot. It looked more like the Yeti drawn in the classics ON THE TRACK OF UNKNOWN ANIMALS and ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN, LEGEND COME TO LIFE. Previously, the Sasquatch/Bigfoot was portrayed as “slope headed”, much in the way of popular conceptions of “cave men”. And then, low and behold, Patterson’s Bigfoot shows up with a sagittal crest.
    (I concede that some folks will simply equate a sagittal crest with the “slope head” characteristic, even though a crested head would be more conical.)

  92. mystery_man responds:

    Jerrywayne- I believe the more closed minded is the one who is most unwilling to look on both sides of the equation. To me, if someone says that PG is real and denies any skeptical arguments against it, that is not constructive. Likewise, as I’ve said, I don’t think skeptics should flat out say the footage is fake either without considering why it might be real. So from the examples you listed, I’d have to say that the proponent who says there is no way it could be hoaxed is the more close minded of the two in my opinion.

    For believers of the footage, I prefer the approach of people who say “there’s a good chance it is real”, then provide supporting arguments as to why they think that is the case while at least entertaining the thought that there’s a chance it isn’t real and any ideas on why that might be the case. Likewise for skeptics explaining their reasons for thinking it is fake without flat denial, as the evidence could maybe lead to something more concrete. I personally am fascinated with ideas and theories from both sides. However, I don’t think we are at a point where we can make declarative statements yet.

    In the end, there is a lot of truth to what rbhess said way in there in his post. In science, when you propose a new theory, it is up to you to prove it is valid, not the other way around. That is how science works. That is how all new discoveries are brought to light. If it was the other way around, then we’d have to accept all manners of outlandish or supernatural ideas as real until proven otherwise. That would be absurd. If a proponent thinks it is real, then fine, I like to hear the reasoning behind that, but declaring it is such is no better than a skeptic denying it outright, as far as I’m concerned. I find problems with believer theories and skeptic theories as well, neither answers all the questions for me at this point. Until sasquatch is proven, I think one should be open to any evidence that pops up, be that for or against, but really it is up to the ones that propose sasquatch as a real creature to prove it in the end. Science is not likely to take the lack of ability to reconstruct a suit as proof that sasquatch is real.

    I personally think there are a lot of reasons to think sasquatch might be a real creature waiting to be discovered. But I think it would be a dangerous thing to assume that sasquatch is real for sure and base a lot of research on what we see from this video, for instance, when there is a chance of it being flawed evidence. It is good to consider this evidence we have, however until sasquatch is proven , I think at least the possibility that it isn’t must be kept in mind to some degree. I have higher hopes for cryptozoology than embracing evidence like a video that is not irrefutably authentic as fact. I want care to be taken to dig up more undeniable physical evidence to back up things like this video. So I don’t like theories that deny the existence of Bigfoot, as we could follow leads like this video to something more, and I also do not think it is prudent to claim it is real beyond a doubt since science demands that the believers prove it. I say let’s follow the evidence and see where it leads, for better or worse. That’s my thought on the matter. Does that answer your question?

  93. mystery_man responds:

    Jerrywayne- I find your background as a “true believer” becoming a skeptic interesting because I used to be what you might call a “denialist” and have softened my stance to the possibility of sasquatch. I remain skeptical, as I have explained in above posts, but I am more willing now to look at and consider evidence supporting the creature, things that could possibly lead to answering the question of whether it is real or not.

    Consider the PG film for instance. In order to make a really good case for the idea of a surviving bipedal, hairy hominid living in North America, which is counter to what is known about modern biology in this habitat, something truly phenomenal is going to have to be presented. I do believe that if you weigh that theory that this is film of such a creature against the idea that someone hoaxed the film, a hoax is more plausible from a scientific standpoint. The film by itself is not much good since by itself it cannot stand as proof. Yet what if it is real? What if this film can somehow lead to something more concrete, something that can be presented to the critical eye of mainstream science? That is the possibility I leave open.

    And so I leave the door open. I think that sure, absolutely the PG film could be fake. But I won’t say it is without a doubt, since some aspects of it are compelling. Coupled with other circumstantial evidence of sasquatch, I am intrigued. Since the film does not constitute proof anyway, I say what’s the harm in giving it consideration? Notice I said “consideration”, not wholehearted acceptance as fact. I mean, the believers who need to prove to skeptics that sasquatch exists need to go on something, don’t they? Nothing will be found if no one investigates. Whether Bigfoot is real or not, I want to know the truth and my former “denialist” ideas didn’t seem necessarily the best avenue towards finding the truth.

  94. rbhess responds:

    “I’m talking – as you are – about the people who call P/G fake, or “probably” fake. If you postulate the former, you must say exactly why, and your explanation must wash. If you postulate the latter, you must establish a clearly calculated percentage of probability, between 51 and 100, and show, clearly, how it was calculated. Don’t hold sas proponents to standards to which you are unwilling to hold yourself. Nothing justifies it; you lose big intellectual points for trying it. Of the pro and con sides of this debate, the smartest people I have seen are proponents.”

    The above was not addressed to me, but I felt I had to respond.

    In this world, we have a current scientific model that prevails because it is based on a plethora of evidence–physical evidence–a well-tested and well-considered model which describes much of the natural history and biology of our planet, so far as the evidence allows. Surely, yes, there are gaps and flaws and information which we don’t yet possess. But a complete “blank,” as it were, is fairly rare; that is to say, when you have an extant species, it usually has a record behind it–there are (for example) fossils of it, and/or fossils of its ancestors. The point that I can’t stress enough is that this model is tried and true; it isn’t based on mere conjecture or only on a pile of guesses—but builds on solid, physical evidence–fossil and otherwise.

    This model tells us that there was probably never any large primates (other than man–believed to be a relative latecomer) in North America. If there were, they’d have left behind some trace… yet they have not–the record here is completely empty. Moreover, no large primate currently extant has made itself known, in North America. In other words, there is no known primate (other than man) naturally occuring in North America… and it’s believed (with reason) that even the primates of South America (all monkeys–no great apes) are descendants of species that existed when South America and Africa were still connected. None of this says definitively that a large primate couldn’t exists in North America–it merely says it’s highly unlikely, based on the overwhelming absence of evidence.

    Now, up against this we have the legend and stories of a huge, man-like creature, a great ape of some kind, stalking the vast forests of the Pacific Northwest. We have numerous sightings of these creatures and one decent film (the subject of this thread) which purports to show one of these animals. So far, this is all that serves for “evidence” of the existence of this creature.

    As we know, in such a case, the classic truism applies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why? Because the case for Bigfoot flies in the face of the generally accepted and very well supported scientific model, referenced above, which tells us that no such animal should be here in North America. As for the Patterson film–given all this, Occam’s Razor also applies; given the choice between a simple explanation based on what we know, and a wilder explanation that breaks the standard model, then the simpler explanation applies–until a preponderence of evidence says otherwise.

    None of this is the same as denying the existence of Bigfoot or stating definitively that the Patterson film is a hoax. We simply apply the standard scientific model and say that Bigfoot is unlikely. And with the Patterson film, we have to say that it’s simply more likely to be a man in a suit–because no one has ever shown it to be impossible for it to have been a man in a suit.

    DWA is wrong in stating that skeptics must prove that it is a man in a suit–he styles himself a “true” skeptic yet continually fails to grasp the fact that, given an extraordinary claim, it isn’t up to the skeptic to “prove” anything, but rather it’s up to the person presenting the extraordinary claim to prove what he or she says. DWA says that the Patterson Bigfoot can’t be a man in a suit—for no good reason other than this is what he chooses to believe. Had he the proof, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Yet he continually demands that others prove what simplicity tells us is more likely to be so—that the Patterson film was a hoax. Sorry, DWA, but yes–“Sas” proponents DO need to be held to a higher standard because they ARE making the extraordinary claim. Just because you feel it’s impossible for the Patterson bigfoot to be a fake, that doesn’t make it so, regardless of the high opinion you clearly have of your own skills in determining these matters. Many people disagree with you, and feel that nothing at all can be said definitively about the Patterson film. I am one of them. It’s convenient for you to label such people as “scoftics” and so on, but your labels don’t change the fact that you continually display a mystifyingly stubborn unwillingness to accept a basic tenet of science–that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Claiming that the Patterson film CANNOT be a man in a suit IS an extraordinary claim. So prove it, and stop asking skeptics to prove otherwise. It’s as simple as that.

    That, or accept that the best and most you can say about the film is that it is undetermined and we can’t be sure WHAT that thing is.

    And make no more grand and sweeping statements about what “intellectual points” skeptics lose by defying you. You merely sound tyrannical when you make such pronouncements, as if you and you alone hold the truth here. The fact is that the truth about the Patterson film is still up for grabs, DWA.

  95. mystery_man responds:

    rbhess- I don’t know if you read them, but that is what I was trying to say in some of my posts on this thread, about the responsibility for proving that sasquatch exists ultimately falling on those who propose it. Like I said, it would be absurd to assume every phenomena out there was real unless we proved it wasn’t. That is a perversion of the scientific method. I personally leave the door open on the existence of sasquatch and think it is worth looking into, but it it certainly is something that challenges what we know of the biology of North America and will certainly need some hefty substantiation. I also tried to explain in earlier posts why animals that are consistent with the known model are easier to accept on less evidence, and tried to get at the gist of the meaning of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” You eloquently summed it up nicely.

  96. DWA responds:

    “And make no more grand and sweeping statements about what “intellectual points” skeptics lose by defying you. You merely sound tyrannical when you make such pronouncements, as if you and you alone hold the truth here. The fact is that the truth about the Patterson film is still up for grabs, DWA. ”

    Not sure you’re reading my posts. I have said on this site, more than a few times, your last sentence, in so many words. I just wish folks like you agreed with what you’re saying.

    Grand and sweeping statements are simply not me. I just have basic standards for rational discourse.

    And one of them is: you do not get to pose an outlandish thesis and just sit there as if you have done as much work as others, who have posed what seems to you a more outlandish thesis …and yet have unearthed a mountain of evidence indicating that theirs may be the truth. While you have uncovered nothing, and sit there on your hands saying, prove it.

    Of course the existence of the sas must be proven, and it’s not the skeptic’s job (as in not, thank God, mine) to do so. But when people say P/G is fake, and don’t pay any attention to what would have had to have been done to pull it off, well, they’re no better than creationists who say that all the evidence for evolution is bunkum, and simply point to the Bible, instead of pointing out, in the terms scientists use, how science is wrong on evolution. And when they put that simple-minded thesis up against the mountain of evidence put up by sas proponents, and say the two should be on equal footing, well, no one who values the truth should let that stand. Because it stymies the search for the truth which should be at the core of science.

    I hope I’ve heard for the last time that the fossil record makes the sas “unlikely.” Um, no it doesn’t, as anyone who has made even a cursory review of the fossil record knows. (The lesser panda’s closest evolutionary kin was only finally found in fossil form a few years back. In Tennessee.) No scientist worthy of the name who examined such a statement could honor his science by calling it correct.

    What the fossil evidence says is that whatever the sas’s ancestors have left in the fossil record hasn’t been found yet. It says nothing about likelihood. To make such a statement is like calling all of next week’s events unllikely – because they haven’t happened yet.

    But some people here like to sound, that is sound, open-minded. ;-)

  97. DWA responds:

    “DWA says that the Patterson Bigfoot can’t be a man in a suit—for no good reason other than this is what he chooses to believe.”

    That’s the new record – set by rbhess a number of times and topped here – for either misinterpreting me or not reading me.

    No one who says this is a fake has a scrap of evidence supporting the claim. (Referring to Patterson’s character as evidence of a fake is like referring to the gorilla as evidence for the sasquatch.)

    As far as the sas is concerned, I’m the most skeptical person I’ve seen on the topic, at least here.

    There is NOTHING about this animal – including this film – that I do not question, vigorously.

  98. Daryl Colyer responds:

    From rbhess:

    “This model tells us that there was probably never any large primates (other than man–believed to be a relative latecomer) in North America. If there were, they’d have left behind some trace… yet they have not–the record here is completely empty. Moreover, no large primate currently extant has made itself known, in North America. In other words, there is no known primate (other than man) naturally occuring in North America…”

    Mr/Ms Hess, your statement is not correct. The model to which you refer does not tell us that there were probably never any large primates in North America. It just tells us that we have not found supportive fossil evidence to date.

    As you should know, however, large primate candidates that closely meet the physical characteristics of the sasquatch have been provided by natural history, as verified through fossil records in Asia.

    It is not implausible at all to suggest that a given species may have crossed the land bridge that once connected Asia to North America, as was the case with many species of plants and animals. In fact, fossil remains of Asian species, such as the red panda (Pristinailurus bristoli), an ecological contemporary of one of the often-mentioned sasquatch candidates, Gigantopithecus blacki, have only recently been found in North America (Tennessee) (as mentioned by DWA). Such findings provide supportive evidence that the “remnant ape” hypothesis is at least plausible.

  99. rbhess responds:

    Daryl:

    I haven’t spoken to you before, so I’ll assume you just misunderstood me. Read my post again, and please take careful note of the fact that I made no definitive statements whatsoever. In fact, I made a point of saying that the standard model we have has nothing definitive to say for or against the existence of Bigfoot. It merely says that since we have an absence of physical evidence of ANY kind of such a creature, either currently extant or in the past (in North America)—then, therefore, if you want to present such an animal as a possibility, then you have to prove it by more extraordinary means than simply presenting a film that could have easily been faked.

    I have stated time and time again that there is no definitive statement inherent in any of this. But there are people who are making definitive statements about the Patterson film–i.e. that it could NOT have been a man in a suit, no matter what it is–and statements of that kind are, quite simply, a total reversal of the scientific method. There is not one shred of proof that the Patterson bigfoot is a real animal—there is only supposition. I do not say that the Patterson bigfoot IS a man in a suit–I merely say that, given the situation, science must assume it IS a man in a suit, until proven otherwise.

    As for your statement that we haven’t found supportive evidence as of yet, in regards to a large primate in North America—then I must point out to you, Daryl, that what you are saying veers very close to a “proof of the negative” situation. There’s no supportive evidence that elves ever existed, either. Would you like science to keep an open mind about that one, too? Or can we just admit that the model of the world we operate with has to make judgements on certain things—based on what evidence we HAVE—not based on evidence we DON’T have. There are no primates (other than man) that we definitively know of in North America. None have ever been found in the fossil record. The safe supposition, by science, is that there never have been any non-man primates in North America, generally speaking—and there the matter stands until someone provides solid physical evidence that challenges that model. Why people have such a difficult time accepting this, I don’t know.

    The fact, Daryl, that there is evidence in Asia for large primates means nothing. America is not Asia. The mere fact that the two continents were tenously connected, 10,000 years ago, does not matter. Sure, all sorts of animals may have migrated over at that time–but clearly not all did—there are many species that are indigenous only to Asia, that are not found in the Americas.

    I never once said that it was implausible that bigfoot or whatever it is may have migrated here from Asia. I am simply saying that for the time being the body of evidence we have speaks against it—not definitively, but generally.

  100. Loren Coleman responds:

    Congratulations. Over a hundred comments have been registered. Please keep it on-topic, and away from personalized flaming exchanges or those comments will vanish. Also, do not even make comments or address them to others. Write each comment about the subject of the blog, not about motives and personalities of the other comment makers. Thank you.

  101. DWA responds:

    rbhess says:

    “I do not say that the Patterson bigfoot IS a man in a suit–I merely say that, given the situation, science must assume it IS a man in a suit, until proven otherwise.”

    Quite not correct, and quite contrary to the scientific method.

    Note how a definitive statement is being made by someone who is really trying to convince us he/she is making no definitive statements. Science – as rbhess actually says, more than once – CAN MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IN THAT FILM. Particularly when experts in relevant fields have pronounced it a new species, and fake proponents have found nothing to support their contention. I’m not sure when science (note I did not say “scientists”) took the proposition with the LEAST evidence (none) as the thing IT MUST ASSUME.

    He/she also says:

    “There are no primates (other than man) that we definitively know of in North America. None have ever been found in the fossil record. The safe supposition, by science, is that there never have been any non-man primates in North America, generally speaking—and there the matter stands until someone provides solid physical evidence that challenges that model. Why people have such a difficult time accepting this, I don’t know.”

    Um, maybe because this is: Quite not correct, and quite contrary to the scientific method.

    THERE IS NO SAFE SUPPOSITION THAT CAN BE MADE ABOUT THE ABOVE SITUATION. Ask the folks who made that safe supposition about Homo floriensis not being out there because it had not been found yet. You can’t construct a model on no evidence; you can only say that NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND YET to confirm the thesis of sas proponents.

    And that is all science (note carefully I do not say “scientists”) can say about this matter. Regardless how many scientists feel free to soil their profession by making “safe suppositions” about what is simply not known yet.

    I’m starting to understand why some people don’t understand that I am a skeptic, and not a proponent.

    SCIENCE IS SKEPTICISM, OR IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

    I’m really trying not to lecture here. ;-)

  102. Daryl Colyer responds:

    “There’s no supportive evidence that elves ever existed….”

    Of course not, nor are there a number of credible reported eyewitness accounts of elves being seen and leaving trace evidence (tracks, scats, hair), or possible film footage that could be of a real elf.

    If there were, then my answer would be yes, science would need to keep the door open on that as well.

    I think you know that I wasn’t endorsing a “proof of the negative” scenario, nor would I. I’m simply saying that one should not dismiss the possibility of something because it’s not (yet) been found in the fossil record. 15,000 to 20,000 new species discovered every year should teach us that. Until very recently, we had found no representation of great apes in the fossil record and to many people, apparently, the existence of the sasquatch is every bit as real as the existence of the chimpanzee.

    “…can we just admit that the model of the world we operate with has to make judgements on certain things—based on what evidence we HAVE…”

    Absolutely.

    Aside from my own personal observations, which sealed the deal for me regarding the sasquatch’s existence some time ago, there is sufficient evidence, in my mind, and the minds of many others, to warrant serious investigation of the sasquatch phenomenon. Now, you and I can debate the measure of the evidence, but there is evidence for it. I believe there is enough evidence to warrant a hypothesis that perhaps there is an unknown species out there.

    “America is not Asia. The mere fact that the two continents were tenously connected, 10,000 years ago, does not matter.”

    Thanks for the geography lesson, but I don’t need it and I disagree that it does not matter that the two continents were “tenuously connected 10,000 years ago.” If Beringia facilitated human migration, as well as significant faunal and floral exchange, then it obviously formed something more substantial than a “tenuous” connection.

    “…if you want to present such an animal as a possibility, then you have to prove it by more extraordinary means than simply presenting a film that could have easily been faked.”

    I agree with this: “…if you want to present such an animal as a possibility, then you have to prove it by more extraordinary means…”

    I disagree that the Patterson-Gimlin film was, or could have been, easily faked.

    If it was faked, (and I don’t believe it was), I don’t believe for a minute that it was done so “easily.”

  103. rbhess responds:

    Daryl:

    All I can suggest (again) is that you re-read my post. You’re attributing to me statements of a definitive nature that I did not make. I never once “dismissed the possibility” of bigfoot.

    Look… I think a big problem here (and I’m not referring necessarily to you, but more to others) is that people get confused about personal feelings in regards to this subject, vs. a scientific judgement. Personally I feel that something unusual is roaming around the Pacific Northwest. I have many reasons for this, but chief among them are the enormous number of tracks found as well as the great number of seemingly-reliable eyewitness sightings.

    Scientifically, however, I’m forced to say there is as yet no reliable, authenticated evidence whatsoever for the existence of this animal. You mention hair and scat which have been found–my understanding is that much of this has been dismissed and only a very little has been found to be of a questionable nature–i.e., undetermined. But even if someone told me, “yep, they found some hair that can only have come from a primate,” then I’d still be hesitant, as I think anyone must be in these circumstances. Where was the hair found? Who found it? What proof do they have that they did, in fact, find it where they say they found it? And so on and on and on.

    People around here start tossing around the made-up (and to my thinking absurd) label of “scoftic” when you start talking like that. But then I know that such people are not scientists and have no understanding or appreciation of the rigor that science has to operate under. It discredits science terribly when professionals in the field jump at every little piece of “evidence” without extremely careful consideration and adherence to the strict rules of the scientific method. One need only look back at the ridiculous farce of the Minnesota Iceman, when Heuvelmans and Sanderson, on the basis of a single, perfunctory “examination”–literally only eyeballing the thing through ice, and smelling it–made the pronouncement that it was a real animal. Sanderson, if I’m not mistaken, went so far as to publish a paper on this. Then it turned out that the damn thing was nothing more than a carnival dummy. That’s an extreme case–but there’s the two fathers of cryptozoology, who made a mistake like that.

    Getting back to the Patterson film–actually, I’ve said myself, recently (on this site) that I admire the film, even if it was a hoax–if he faked it, Patterson did a hell of a job. So sure, I’ll cop to the accusation of overstatement when I remarked that it could have been “easily” faked… but then, what of it? What matters–in a scientific sense–is not how difficult it would have been to fake but whether it could have been faked. And as I’ve pointed out in the past–because the animal in the film is still within the size range for a man, and because its movements are manlike, then scientifically we MUST say that it is worthless as evidence. Notwithstanding all the people on this site who claim it couldn’t possibly have been a man in a suit, whatever it was (they offer not the slightest shred of proof of this), the fact remains that it’s man-sized, man-shaped, and moves in a manlike way. All question of “difficulty” aside, the simplest explanation is that it was, therefore, a man in a suit. I DO NOT say that that’s what I believe–my personal feelings are a bit different. But there I am speaking from a scientific point of view. In short–as evidence, the film is worthless, until it could be proven (somehow, and I don’t see how this could ever be done) that it could not be a man in a suit.

    My personal feelings, as I say, are different. Eyewitness sightings are also scientifically near-worthless, but I lend credence to them, personally. I think people have seen something. And the film–at times it’s bothered me. If it’s faked it was well-choreographed and the suit was well-done. More than that I can’t say. On the other hand I’ve seen stills from the film that indicate, to me, what looks like certain shapes in the limbs that look unnatural–the appearance, I’ve thought, of arm extensions and perhaps some kind of “pull-on” leg pieces under the fur–as if the suit was made with fur-covered hip waders or something if that nature. But then I also have to admit that maybe I’m just seeing shapes that are meaningless, just as others claim they can see muscle movement, or the guys a few years back who claimed that they could see the “bell-shaped object” at the back which they thought was the little connector that held the suit together. Yeah, right.

  104. mystery_man responds:

    I think I’ve said quite enough on this subject for now, but I will say one more thing. While I think that the PG film could possibly have been faked, I hope that those who have the resources and desire to look into it further in the field continue to do so, although I think care should be taken with strict scientific documentation. Maybe I am somewhat of a romantic, but to me SOMEONE has to follow up on potential leads like this film. Although I think it is true that the film doesn’t constitute evidence, this footage does not exist in a vacuum. We have sightings, footprints, and whatnot, so as much as I am skeptical, I find myself thinking “what if that is indeed footage of a real creature?”. If it is out there to be found, how is the physical evidence that science demands going to come to light without actually acting on some of the circumstantial evidence we have? I respect the need for a preponderance of evidence to substantiate the reality of sasquatch, but nothing will likely be found if we take the stance of sitting around waiting for possible proof to turn up on its own. I don’t think I have to remind anyone here that there have been scientific discoveries throughout the ages, often radically different from accepted models, that were frequently met with critical skepticism and even outright derision at first, so I for one am glad that those who went on to prove their ideas didn’t stop and say “yeah, no evidence. Oh well, I’ll twiddle my thumbs.” These pioneers too their theories and then doggedly went on to prove them even against common knowledge. My point is someone has to take the lead and LOOK. Is it wrong for some out there to try and break new ground by pursuing a new theory on what they see to be promising signs the idea could hold some water? This is the very essence of discovery to me.

    So what I mean to say is that regardless that this film could very well be a fake, I must admit I am happy that there are those out there willing to make an effort to scientifically verify the creature and investigate further. I am all for those that follow up on scat or other tenuous physical evidence as it is a potential lead to something more solid. I absolutely agree that there is a model of the universe and to change that model requires irrefutable evidence. I agree with the notion that the PG film is not that proof. But what is the harm in considering it? What if it is a lead that brings us to a further understanding of the truth about sasquatch? I doubt the final proof we need is going to appear in our lap by just demanding it. I think someone has to take the circumstantial evidence like this video seriously enough to check it out, or we won’t further our knowledge at all, merely continue arguing ad nauseam about the possibility of the film being this or that. Whether any found physical evidence turns out to be useful or not, it is the effort to try and advance our knowledge that I appreciate. I have no problem with accepting that sasquatch does not exist if that is indeed the case but I want real answers, not regrets of “what ifs” that may not have properly been followed up on. So in my opinion as long as scientific protocols are being met with regards to considering the evidence that is found, I cannot see the harm in the search.

  105. DWA responds:

    rbhess says:

    “And as I’ve pointed out in the past–because the animal in the film is still within the size range for a man, and because its movements are manlike, then scientifically we MUST say that it is worthless as evidence.”

    No way! On what possible grounds could one do something so contrary to the scientific method? Just because scientists actually do that doesn’t make it right.

    Bigfoot, if it exists, apparently (1) crosses the size range for humans and (2) has manlike movements. Copious sighting reports, cited by rbhess as his compelling evidence that something odd is up here (he has no idea how close he and I are on this), say both things. So how could the presence of both those things disqualify the film as evidence? It’s like discounting the evidence for other mammals because, like us, they have hair and two eyes.

    Once again: WE CAN TELL NOTHING CONCLUSIVE FROM P/G. Therefore, science (note how I carefully avoid saying “scientists”) tells us THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN ASSUME.

    And evidence is only useful if it is followed up. From that standpoint, sure. So far, P/G has been useless. Until somebody with the resources and connections required looks at it and says: I’m following up, it will continue to be. Unless of course all the debate gets someone off the dime.

  106. rbhess responds:

    I’m trying to attribute others’ statements to what I believe now is a kind of confusion stemming from the difference between what science can say about the Patterson film as a “judgement”—and what science must say about the film in the abstract, strictly as a piece of evidence. I think I’ve put this badly, but I’m struggling to put into words a concept that to me is more or less taken for granted.

    On the one hand–no one, scientist or otherwise–can say anything conclusive or definitive at all about the film.

    Simply put, it could be a man in a suit, or it could be a real animal. If the former, we’re done as far as the Patterson film goes–though it would not disprove the existence of bigfoot. If the latter, then it has to be an unknown, and the biology books need re-writing.

    I have said time and time again that from a personal standpoint, the film troubles me. I am left on the fence by it (I won’t repeat myself as to why). One thing I also feel however, is that we’ll never be able to know for certain what it is. Oh sure, maybe if someday the existence of bigfoot IS established, and it looks just like the bigfoot in the Patterson film, then maybe. But even then we can’t be certain that Patterson didn’t fake it, could we? (Though of course it would be far less likely, in that event).

    NOW… partly because we can never be certain of what it is, this is why I say that the film is left worthless as evidence. As an individual, I can say “maybe.” Maybe I see something in that film that bothers me, that makes me think it could be a real animal. But science itself isn’t allowed such luxuries of “iffy-ness.” It has to be this or that. NOT on the question of the existence of bigfoot–but simply on the question of a piece of evidence. EVEN THEN I do not mean that science makes a judgement call in some final, ironclad sense, which is where I think you’re misunderstanding me. I only mean that science must judge an item or an artifact in the moment as demanded. Maybe someday some technology we can’t even dream of will be able to look at that film and tell us definitively that it’s a real animal, or definitively that it’s a man in a suit. Until then, yes—the film remains an open question. But an open question is, then, useless as a piece of evidence. Are you beginning to see what I mean?

    This is a form of Occam’s Razor. We have an artifact, the identity of which we can’t determine. But then, we need to make a call on that artifact. So we have to go with the simpler, more likely explanation—for the time being.

    Here’s another way of looking at it. Let’s say you lose a valuable possession… say, a painting. Then I come to you and show you a picture of the painting, a photograph of it, in someone’s home–(we’ll say that at first neither of us knows whose home it is, so you can’t just go and look at it to verify for certain that it’s yours). In a court of law, that would be a suggestive piece of evidence which would say that maybe that person had stolen your painting, and a judge could at least issue a warrant to have the painting confiscated or something, so that it’s identity could be firmly established. And let’s say it gets confiscated, and an expert says, “well, that’s probably the same painting.” And maybe there’s other evidence which suggests this person stole it from you. The court can finally make a judgement call on that, and award you the painting back. The law can come down on one side or the other of such a question. But science has to maintain a greater rigor. Sure, a scientist could say, “sure looks like the same painting.” But SCIENCE can’t say that it IS the same painting until we get a hold of it and examine it and make tests of it. Maybe it’s a copy. Maybe it’s a print. Science isn’t allowed “maybes” though. Science can’t say if that painting definitively is or isn’t yours—so then scientifically, the photograph is worthless. Yes, to the court it raises suspicion. But scientifically it means nothing. Nothing can be said scientifically until we have the painting in our possession and can test it.

    Take it further. Say that we know that there WERE copies of the painting made, and many prints. Then the situation is worse. Then we can’t even have as reasonable a suspicion about the photograph. Then there’s a good chance that it IS just a copy or a print. Now we’re in a worse spot. We can’t even be all that suspicious… not without more evidence. And let’s even say that this other person who has this possible copy, is a pillar of the community—the last person in the world who would steal a painting. Even less ground for suspicion.

    So it is with the Patterson film. No, we can’t say anything conclusive or definitive about it. But therefore, until we can, it is, in the abstract, worthless as a piece of evidence.

    But I don’t know if it’s helpful to pursue this further. I am upholding the scientific method when I say the film is worthless as evidence, because it remains quite possible and plausible that it is a man in a suit.

    To claim that it is MORE likely to be a real animal than a man in a suit is an extraordinary claim… and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not vice versa. That doesn’t mean the door is closed on bigfoot itself or for that matter the Patterson film. It merely means that we still have an open question.

  107. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: what you said.

    rbhess: you may be starting to see how close you and I are on this.

    Where we differ is on the preponderance of evidence that the Patterson film is real, and what that means.

    I don’t believe that we have to “go with the simpler, more likely explanation” on this film, because we don’t have any explanation at all. The scientific need for rigor which you stress repeatedly says you can’t go with any explanation not backed by evidence tantamount to proof. And as many of us have said many times, “man in ape suit” is not a simple explanation, and certainly not simpler than the simple existence of a highly plausible animal. Particularly if that animal simply EXISTS.
    How could the logistics required for a suit hoax be a simpler explanation, if (a) it has never been plausibly explained how such a thing could have reasonably happened and (b) the critter has (possibly) simply been there all this time? If there is one thing the copious encounter evidence tells me it is that this thing is as plausible as anything we know to exist – the difficulty in confirming it (amost wholly a function of science’s lack of followup) aside.

    Extraordinary evidence will never be found unless someone finds it; and to find it someone has to look.

    Hikers tend not to scientifically confirm unknown animals. Fully funded scientific expeditions – devoting the time and the effort required – do.

    People are seeing this critter, in droves. But until someone brings back more than an encounter report it will remain unconfirmed. “Someone” probably won’t be a layman.

    I can’t blame science for simply not looking. But I can blame it for stating – based on nothing – that there is nothing to look for. Which science in fact does not say. But too many scientists who should know better do.

  108. mystery_man responds:

    rbhess- I agree with what you said, the PG film is pretty much worthless as scientific evidence as it stands now, and nothing that we can see in it proves it is a sasquatch beyond any reasonable doubt. I myself have said time and time again that the fact that it COULD be fake renders any data gathered from it as speculation. I do not think we can build any solid case for sasquatch existing based on this film. That is the bottom line. You are quite right there.

    But wait. My thoughts are that if someone has the means and desire to pursue the matter further, that to me is not a bad thing. The fact is that there are people out there trying to collect viable evidence to prove sasquatch in a scientific manner, and I find nothing wrong with that. If they want to use the PG footage as a lead to how sasquatch MIGHT be, then as long as definitive presumptions are not made, I say fine. It does not count as any serious evidence, but who knows, maybe they WILL come up with a needed preponderance of evidence to support their claims. I don’t think we can fully rule that possibility out yet. Sure, I do have contentions about the way evidence may be skewed or misrepresented, such as broken branches being assumed to be the doing of Bigfoot, or assuming the PG footage must be real, as well as your example regarding Heuvelmans and Sanderson. Making mistakes like that does not help anyone and I feel it can lead to dangerous assumptions based on questionable data. However, I urge anyone who has a theory that they feel is worth investigating to be all means delve into it further if they can. I see nothing against science in taking a theory, in this case sasquatch, which is while not a feasible theory in some people’s minds is nevertheless pointed at by a heap of circumstantial evidence, and then trying to follow that to where it leads. It is absolutely up to the believers, the ones that propose an extraordinary hypothesis to prove it, so I say have at it. If their evidence is not admissible, then no harm done, we merely continue with our accepted model of the world. But if they by some chance manage to successfully challenge that model, we will be better off for it. I agree the PG footage is quite likely a dead end, and I don’t think we are at the stage where any serious research funding will be applied to this field, but I am glad someone is out there giving it a go.

  109. Roger Knights responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster wrote (post #70, 9/21/07 at 11:03 PM):
    “I’m having trouble seeing how an odor can be ‘faint’ and yet be smelled at the distance away that you give.”

    Response: The odor was not faint at the source, but faint at the distance that I gave.

    ================
    AtomicMrEMonster wrote (post #78, 9/22/07, at 2:02 PM):
    “I’m surprised at what I’ve found. Patterson once referred to Patty as a “son of a buck,”

    That’s not a serious contradiction. “Daughter of a buck” doesn’t come trippingly off the tongue; and he’d no doubt had it engraved in his mind for years that Bigfoot sighting = male, because that’s what over 90% of reporting persons describe.

    ===============
    AtomicMrEMonster wrote (post #78, 9/22/07, at 2:02 PM):
    “I’m surprised at what I’ve found. … [Patterson’s] references to Patty having drooping breasts match the Roe sighting, but not what we see on film….”

    No, the Roe-creature’s breasts were horizontal, or perky, as shown in the drawing made by his daughter under Roe’s direction, which is reproduced on p. 54 of Green’s “Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us” and p. 36 of Murphy’s “Meet the Sasquatch.” Roe described her similarly, using the discreet and indirect diction appropriate to a 50’s-era Canadian newspaper, as having “a complete well-proportioned female figure.” (Source: “Hunter spots Sasquatch girl” in “The Province.”) Patterson would have seen and made a copy of that article when he visited John Green in 1964 or 1965. And he may even have seen Roe’s drawing at that point too. The drawing of the Roe creature by an artist for an outdoor magazine (“Field and Stream” I think) that is reproduced on p. 101 of “The Bigfoot Film Controversy,” and that does have Patty-like breasts, was obviously (to Patterson) based on the artist’s guesswork.

    The creature with truly pendulous (vertical) breasts was the “Old Lady” described by Ostman–see Patterson’s drawing on p. 121 of “The Bigfoot Film Controversy.” Patty’s breasts were in between–at a 45 degree downward angle. “Pooped” would be a term intermediate between perky and pendulous to describe them. Patterson followed neither template.

    ==============
    AtomicMrEMonster wrote (post #78, 9/22/07, at 2:02 PM):
    “I’m surprised at what I’ve found. … Of the two, Bob Gimlin seems to have been better to sticking to his story, even to the point of openly contradicting Roger at events. I find it very odd that after Bob Gimlin did this a few times, he later stopped appearing with Roger Patterson or talking about Bigfoot until after Patterson’s death.”

    Gimlin contradicted Patterson in interviews before the events (film screenings in theaters) at which they appeared together. I’m not aware of any contradictions AT such events, although they may well have occurred. (Can you cite a source for them occurring there?)

    Patterson’s brother-in-law Al DeAtley, who was present during the film-showings, gave a different rationale for Gimlin’s departure: “Gimlin had gone bye-bye. … I understand that Gimlin’s wife wasn’t too happy with all of this sh*t. I think she put her foot down and said, “Enough’s enough.” (“The Making of Bigfoot,” p. 265)

    ================
    jerrywayne wrote (post # 84, 9/22/07, 4:31 PM):
    “And it should be noted that a self-confessed [make that “self-proclaimed”–RK] hoaxer, Bob Heironimus, is 6 foot or 6foot 1 inch.]”

    And thus too tall to fit into a 6 foot 1 inch [Skeptical Greg’s estimate) Patty suit that contained a three-inch high sagittal crest.

    ================
    rbhess wrote (post #96, 9/24/07, 11:14 AM):
    “This model tells us that there was probably never any large primates (other than man–believed to be a relative latecomer) in North America. If there were, they’d have left behind some trace …”

    That’s not so, according to Myra Shackley’s 1983 book, “Still Living?” p. 48: “North America has no other primates today, but this has not alwys been the case. A single upper molar tooth was sifted from tones of rubbish at a site in Montana called Purgatory Hill, and must represent a primate which, with its friends, was living in North America 40 million years ago.”
    (That would be the Miocene Era, I think.)

  110. Roger Knights responds:

    A PS to my defense, above, of Patterson’s use of “son of a buck” to describe Patty: “Gunwoman” is a similarly hard-to-use term. Bank robbers, like Bigfoots, are “marked” as male. A witness might well describe a female bank robber as a “gunman” for that reason.

  111. Roger Knights responds:

    AtomicMrEMonster:
    Re your post #46, 9/20 at 9:19pm:

    I’d very much like to know the magazine the Don Post gorilla suit ad appeared in, and its exact date. I’d like to cite it in an article, but I need to “source” it properly.

  112. Roger Knights responds:

    As further support for my belief that it’s not suspicious that Patterson referred to patty initially as a “son-of-a-buck,” because Bigfoot is “marked” as male, here’s a quote from Ivan Sanderson’s Feb. 1968 Argosy article on the filming:

    “… did the horses scare the ‘adorable woodsman,’ which is my name for the lady?”

  113. Roger Knights responds:

    One more point against the examiner who judged Heironimus to be truthful on the TV show “Lie Detector”: He is the same examiner who judged five of Travis Walton’s six supporting witnesses to be truthful. (I believe he did this on his TV show too.)

  114. DWA responds:

    Every now and then I go over old threads when I think of new things to add.

    With this thread, looking over it again, a few things bothered me about the P/G film. They’re things I don’t recall seeing any skeptic on the sasquatch ever address, and I can’t help but wonder why. (No, I haven’t brought up more than like one or two of them. Hey, I can’t do all the thinking around here.)

    1) Many folks seem willing to come on to Cryptomundo and argue this film with us. None of them ever address the analyses of this film by qualified experts in relevant fields, virtually all of whom came back saying either “unknown animal” or “can’t tell” (which I think is a sotto voce way of saying, “that’s not human.” But that’s just me.)
    1a) One of the “con” votes on P/G said that the film conclusively showed him an unknown animal – then deumurred on the grounds that “I can’t believe the Sasquatch exists.” This is what happens to scientists on this topic; they forsake their training. I never see it properly accounted for.
    2) The most scathing skeptical analysis of this film that I have seen (David Daegling’s) doesn’t address the substantive aspects of the proponent analyses at all, uses junk science to make its points, and still, in the end, states that “the identity of the film subject cannot be determined with any confidence.”
    3) I keep hearing – from rbhess, primarily – that scientific models are intended to tell scientists what the world is like. Don’t know about you, but I always felt that scientists create the models, don’t allow models to restrict free exchange of thought – which clearly happened to P/G – and revise them upon further information. Not only that, but models describe what is. They do not – they cannot – describe what isn’t. (Yet.) Either the sasquatch exists or it doesn’t. It’s either 100 or zero. A model that says the latter when fact is the former is bad wrong. Science uses models to guide thinking, not to think for it. The major crime scientists – with few exceptions – made with P/G was not thinking for themselves, but letting groupthink rule.
    4) A restatement of 3): if anyone asks whether there are, or ever have been, apes or other non-human anthropoids in North America, the only answer a scientist can truly give is: not that we know of, yet.
    5) Models do NOT allow one to make assumptions about an unknown that suddenly shows up on the radar screen. Speculate on the basis of what is known, yes. Assume, no. When a scientist sees a film of what looks as much like an unknown primate as it does like a human in a suit – never mind that people with serious credentials are telling him so, and some of those are saying it’s the former – the only assumption the scientist is allowed by his training to make is: I can’t state what that is.
    6) Assuming it’s a man in a suit is NOT allowed. Models don’t act as a club against knowledge; they simply require proof before they are changed. The tack I hear rbhess taking is: science can’t consider any evidence contrary to a model unless it amounts to proof. Indeed, science must assume the evidence is a false positive! Not sure where research can go with that. Pluto would still be a major planet if that were so (look how quick that model got overturned). And OK, Pluto shouldn’t have been demoted. But scientists don’t seem to know when democracy applies. :-D
    7) That scientists are abandoning their training when it comes to the sasquatch is illustrated, pretty conclusively, by this: I have never heard a scientist on this topic who sounded like anything other than an unschooled layman spouting off at a cocktail party. Unless he either thought the animal was real, or thought a harder look was required.

    And now, if you take exception, you really have to just reread. Because you are, quite clearly, jumping to conclusions. Qualified folks who reviewed P/G could tell you that.

    I’m guilty of saying – even right here – that P/G has been terminally polluted as evidence. But J. Darren Naish is only the latest piece of evidence that maybe *I* jumped to a conclusion there.

  115. DWA responds:

    I should probably say something about this too (although I thought I had, somewhere).

    ———————————-

    rbhess wrote (post #96, 9/24/07, 11:14 AM):
    “This model tells us that there was probably never any large primates (other than man–believed to be a relative latecomer) in North America. If there were, they’d have left behind some trace …”

    ———————————-

    Um, that’s a flawed model (Roger’s demurrer aside). Here’s why:

    1) As I said above, models tell us what has been determined to be true. they don’t assess probabilities for something that is either a 100 (exists) or a zero (doesn’t). They can only address things that aren’t in the model by saying: there is nothing sufficient to prove that contention. (Yet.)

    2) The fossil record is nothing to predict from. It will always be, by definition, incomplete. Not only is it, in fact, incomplete (a very small percentage of prehistoric animals are known from full sets of remains), but fossilization is such a fabulously rare process – bet: you will NOT become a fossil, no matter how you intend to improve the odds – that the absence of something from the fossil record being taken as evidence that the thing did not exist is, in essence, proving a negative. With no evidence from which to draw. It’s simply conduct unbecoming a scientist to state that if something had existed, it would have left some trace. There’s no theory – much less conceivable proof – supporting that notion.

    And as all of us here know, there’s much closer to overwhelming evidence for the sasquatch than there is to an “overwhelming absence of evidence.” Whether now considered proof by mainstream science or not, that is NOT a minor point.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



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.