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.

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


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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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…

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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!

  22. 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!!!!!” 😛 (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.)

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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. 🙂

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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!

  31. 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.

  32. 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”!

  33. 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).

  34. 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. 😀

    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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. 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.)

  42. 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?

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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. 😉

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



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