Sasquatch Coffee


Confessions of a Skeptic: The Patterson Paradox

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 18th, 2009

Patty

We all have to balance being openminded, careful and skeptical in our approaches to all evidence presented within the Bigfoot field, of course, as I have discussed before.

But there often are dangers from within that must be observed close at hand.

Take, for instance, what Joshua B. Buhs, in his Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend, says, on page 220:

“Bickering among Sasquatch enthusiasts also proved useful to the skeptics, because they could always find one Bigfooter to criticize another.”

This is especially true about a special group of ex-Bigfooters. The new born-again skeptics and scoffers seem mostly to be one-time “true believers” who feel they have found the correct path to enlightenment through flashes of logic that mean much to them. One writes in today, to share his insights.

Cryptomundo reader and Bigfoot debunker Jerry Wayne Borchardt of Texas, passes along this comment:

I was a Bigfoot enthusiast for many decades. I became disenchanted with Bigfoot advocacy when the Bigfoot phenomena spread from the plausible location of the remote Pacific Northwest to encompass the entire country. This turn of events, the Great Implausibility, seemed to me more an outcome of newly minted myth than a credible biological issue.

I had accepted the Patterson film prior to my disenchantment. After I began to doubt the reality of Bigfoot, I would revisit the Patterson film in an attempt to rejuvenate my “belief” in Bigfoot’s existence. It worked for a while. After time, however, the more I researched and watched the film, the old magic just wasn’t there and I became free to doubt it as genuine.

I present the Patterson Paradox:

1. The film subject is a largely realistic image of an unknown animal.

2. Excluding the film image, virtually every attending issue concerning the film points unmistakably to a hoax.

This paradox has allowed both the advocate and the skeptic to claim the upper hand in the debate over the film’s authenticity. Consider, for example, Greg Long’s interview with Rene Dahinden concerning the P. film. After the skeptical Long challenged the film on the grounds of its lack of provenance and on the issue of Patterson’s honesty, Dahinden yelled his reply: “Just examine the f—— film!” F— Roger Patterson! And f— Bob Gimlin! OK? Ignore the human element. Look at the
f—— film!” (Long’s The Making of Bigfoot, page 193.)

Well, I can’t “ignore the human element” here.

I cannot prove it is a hoax; I’m only going to express my doubts. My doubts center around the tracks, the film image, and Roger Patterson.

Responses?

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


48 Responses to “Confessions of a Skeptic: The Patterson Paradox”

  1. kittenz responds:

    I don’t harbor any doubts; I think the P/G film is a hoax, for reasons too numerous to list here.

  2. ruffready responds:

    I just go by my gut feelings and..the most obvious explanation is usually the right one or you could think along these lines…when you watch the evening news or read the news paper…don’t you ever say to yourself…man! humans are nuts!!

    Bottom line we need a body. We need tangible proof that folks can see feel touch smell and catalog.

  3. Sassafrasquatch responds:

    What kind of post is this really? Someone simply saying ” look at the film! It is obviously a hoax” ? I might as well say ” NO! Look at the film! It is obviously the real deal”.
    If this is just someone expressing their “Doubts”..post it somewhere else..another forum somewhere. This particular film is NEVER going to be vindicated one way or the other unless someone brings forth some damning proof that it is real or fake. Until that time it is just a shouting match and a waste of time.
    If your going to express your doubts and and challenge the authenticity of the film then come armed with your list of reasons and your logic behind them rather than simply giving a vague overall expression of disbelief that leaves people wondering what points you have found dubious. I’ve seen countless documentaries on this film and after 4 decades of speculation I can still only conclude that the film is
    1. A brilliant hoax
    2. Sass in the flesh

  4. praetorian responds:

    Although an argument can be cobbled together that the Patterson film is a hoax, I think the amount of knowledge and effort required to pull it off would have been staggering.

    Given the amount of work done on the film in recent years, the totality of the evidence indicates to me, a complete amateur, that the film is the real deal. Some of most convincing evidence for me is:

    -The physiology of the creature in the film seems to preclude it being someone in a suit (knees and elbows in wrong place, other proportions incorrect). In fact, it would apparently be impossible to fit a human with a normal physiology into the “suit” if it is in fact a suit. Even if you could somehow cram some poor unfortunate in there, to walk convincingly and fluidly would be impossible.

    -The gait of the creature in the film is not human. Although I’ve seen attempts to replicate it, none have achieved the fluidity of the creature in the film.

    -Recent analysis of the possible camera settings and the size of other objects in the film seems to confirm that the object in the film is between 7 and 8 feet tall.

    -The musculature of the creature could not have hoaxed convincingly given the technology available when the film was made (apparently, it wasn’t available until the late 80s). The Planet of the Apes costume technology could not have produced the effect.

    -The track castings taken after the filming are consistent with the estimated size and weight of the creature.

    -Analysis of the creature’s foot flexion seems to indicate the presence of a midtarsal break, an attribute of the great apes.

    -Finally, and for me most persuasively, enhancement of the facial region of the creature in the film shows it moving back its lips and displaying its teeth several times. This is a recognized and common simian behavior.

    Could someone with a knowledge of primate physiology and behavior have joined forces with a costume maker who was twenty years ahead of his time to design a Bigfoot suit for a human actor of grossly abnormal physiology? I suppose anything’s possible. That Roger Patterson actually filmed a Bigfoot just seems a whole lot more likely to me.

    If something looks, walks, and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

  5. korollocke responds:

    What do you mean knees and elbows are are wrongly positioned? As far as the suit, you never heard of Kogar? Bob Burns(Tracy the Gorilla in the old live action Ghostbusters tv show.)? Seriously great ape suits have been out there long before the 80′s. I’m not saying theres not a real bigfoot out there some where, but this film doesn’t show a real one.

  6. Terrell H King responds:

    What stands out for me as one of the best signs of authenticity is the clear muscle contour.

    When the creature turns back towards the camera, you can clearly see the contraction of the quadriceps, just above the knee.

    Unless this is a skin tight (atleast on the legs), incredibly well constructed suit, on a giant man with a very strange gait and body shape, with good knowledge of primate behaviour, then you have to accept that this film appears to be a real sasquatch.

    All we need now is a body;-)

  7. Rob008 responds:

    Nobody has ever successfuly copied the Patterison film. This guy Morris, who claims that he made the suit. How come he has not made another one? I want to see somebody copy the Patterson film and make it look just like the original. It should be easy now with today’s techology.

  8. eireman responds:

    “I became disenchanted with Bigfoot advocacy when the Bigfoot phenomena spread from the plausible location of the remote Pacific Northwest to encompass the entire country. This turn of events, the Great Implausibility, seemed to me more an outcome of newly minted myth than a credible biological issue.”

    Had this guy done some research, he would have found tales of mysterious “ape-men”, etc… in many states long before the Himalayan Yeti captured American imaginations, long before those loggers discovered fresh tracks and the name Bigfoot was born, long before the Patterson film, and long before the Bigfoot hoopla of the 1970′s.

    Is this proof? No. It could just be the human expression of some deeply-entrenched archetype. However, it is compelling and (in my opinion) merits further investigation.

    I agree, a specimen is ultimately necessary, but it’s going to take field work and not unending analysis of the Patterson film. The future of the study lies in those men and women hunting for it out there in the wilds of North America. Until they can get a specimen, we can never move forward.

  9. praetorian responds:

    Hi korollocke-

    When a correctly scaled image of a human skeleton is superimposed over the creature in the Patterson film, the proportions are all wrong. By proportions I mean the relative length of the bones in the arms and legs. This of course affects the location of joints in the arms and legs.

    For a much more scientific description of the physiology of the creature in the film and why its proportions are not human, if you have access to it check out Jeff Meldrum’s “Sasquatch-Legend Meets Science” Chapter 8. He compares the ratio of the upper extremities to the lower and expresses it as an intermembral (IM) index. He concludes that the IM index of the creature in the film is well outside the human range. He states, “the combination of these proportions with the exceptional breadth dimensions argue compellingly against the simplistic hypothesis of an average man, even one wearing shoulder pads, donning a gorilla costume, or using artificial arm extensions.”

    As far as the costume argument is concerned, my question would be why the film has yet to be convincingly duplicated. The attempts I’ve seen don’t really come close.

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    I believe the PG footage is genuine and not a hoax.

    There is simple reasoning for this conclusion. Prove it is not real. Or better yet, try and duplicate the film with the technologies of that time. Good luck, you will need it! And therefore, common logic dictates, that if you can not prove it is a hoax by replication, then it must be real! End of story!

    That is the simple argument. Now let’s add some facts to what we already have.

    Digital manipulation was not a current technology when that film was recorded. It was basically a Kodachrome slide film. It is what it is.

    Also, even with today’s great costume artists and make up artists, this feat can not even be replicated today. Patterson and Gimlin would had to have in their possession, the skilled artisans and products of today, to even come close to what they have on film. It could not have been done during that time the film was recorded.

    One must also take into account eyewitness reports and the character of the eyewitnesses of that time, chiefly Patterson and Gimlin. For a skeptic to call them liars without basis is ludicrous! It is also unfair. And without substantiating proof that they are liars, it is libel in the written post above. Shame on the poster!

    But let’s take some more scientific facts into account, shall we? When the BF in the PG footage turns to look at Patterson and Gimlin, it does so in a very strange way. It turns it’s head and shoulder, just as gorillas do. We make this observation by watching the film. It was not a point of contention then but helps solidify that the film in the genuine article, from what we know today. Ask Jane Goodall if a North American big ape exists. She has gone on record as saying it probably does exist. That’s an expert opinion my friend and not the opinion of an amature skeptic! I’ll take the word of Jane and many other world reknowned researchers over some amature who is a skeptic with a big foul mouth. Just my opinion.

    Lastly, the film as been analyzed by the scientific community and the way the muscle moves, proves it is attached to the dermal layers and not a suit. But because some scoptic has a differenet opinion, contrary to reputable scientists, who are you going to believe. Not the poster above!

    There is so much evidence that points to the PG BF footage as genuine, that for most, it should be irrefutable evidence that BF exists. But there are those who do not have all the facts. There are those that will try to disprove with their “amature opinions” that are truly baseless, that because they are a skeptic, they think they appear as intelligent to those who believe the footage is genuine. Their narcism will not allow any objective evaluation and conclusions that oppose their beliefs. For these skeptics, there beliefs outweigh facts, expert opinions, scientific facts and go as far to attack the credibility of two honest men by calling them liars. All this without any proof to the contrary.

    Shame on this poster! I actually feel sorry because he lacks the grey matter to make an objective evaluation. But go ahead Mr. Skeptic, continue to make a fool of yourself and display your lack of intelligence. It just makes the believers arguments all more valid.

    As for me, I am LOL at you and skeptics like you. When a BF body finally turns up, what are you going to do with the egg on your face. I hope I live long enough to see that. But if history is correct, you will be silently hiding somewhere with your head in the ground.

    Just one believer’s viewpoint!

  11. kittenz responds:

    It’s not necessarily a “suit”, per se; it’s a costume, crafted of various components onto an individual human being. Just because no one has EXACTLY duplicated it, does not mean that it isn’t a fake. Like all performance art, it was captured in the moment. Even if the same costume artists used the same materials on the same human being, they could probably not produce an exact duplicate. When you have different artists using different materials on a different human, and guessing at the methodology used by the original artists to boot, you’re guaranteed to end up with something different. Just as fake, but different.

    Too bad P, G & H did not realize that their little flick was going to “go viral” as we would say today. It could have been the “Blair Witch Project” of its era.

  12. thylo responds:

    korollocke responds:
    August 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am
    “…As far as the suit, you never heard of Kogar? Bob Burns(Tracy the Gorilla in the old live action Ghostbusters tv show.)? Seriously great ape suits have been out there long before the 80’s.”

    I appreciate your sentiment here, but your examples leave much to be desired.
    I hadn’t heard of these gorilla-suits before so i had to google… but they leave much to be desired.
    i guess folks in the 50s were easily amused… and short.

    I concur that a good imitation of the Patterson film needs to be executed, even with modern materials, for proof of concept (as per Mythbusters) that the Patterson film could be staged.
    heck, it would be great if Jamie and Adam would take this one on for an episode (they haven’t yet have they?).

  13. Dan Gannon responds:

    kittenz,

    I’m not aware of any potential variations in an actor’s performance that will cause spontaneous and extreme skeletal changes, including limb proportions, skull size and shape, and the angle at which the spine attaches to the skull. The physics recorded by the film is not consistent with a “modern human,” not even close.

  14. CalebKitson responds:

    I have watched the Pat/Gim footage over and over, trying to come to a personal decision on whether it is a hoax or not. And I believe there are far too many factors to possibly know for a fact that it is a hoax. Some things I have noticed:

    1. The hair seems patchy, indicating hair, rather than fur. I’ve noticed on my own leg hair, because it is more spars than fur, will often clump together in areas, making one section darker, and the other section light.

    2. The creature has fairly slender fingers, unlike the thick, blunted fingers of apes like gorillas or chimps.

    3. The creature has long legs, typical of a human, and not a semi-quadrupedal ape.

    I think that if ANYTHING can be concluded from this footage, it is that Sasquatch is most likely a form of human, and not a bipedal ape (assuming this footage is not a hoax). Especially considering that the creature in the film seems to have a high degree of sentience.

    side note: The hair on the face confuses me.

  15. springheeledjack responds:

    And herein we have the crux of the cryptozoology world. On one side, you have those who defend the existence of BF, and on the other end you have those who look at what info we have and say it’s not enough–no real BF.

    It is age old, and it will not go away until we have a corpse–not just to prove that BF exists, but without a corpse, there will also always be those who believe.

    That is the bottom line. I seriously doubt that any of us here will be easily changed in our ideas about the existence of BF (or other cryptids for that matter), by anything said here, or by further examination of evidence.

    I know my belief in cryptid is not threatened or shaken by anything that goes on here or even in the world. I have seen the evidence for cryptids land and water based, and have made up my own mind about them.

    My point here is that rehashing the evidence in order to convince others is basically futile…all of us here have our own theories and ideas. I do think it is relevant to put forth the facts for new people into the crypto-arena–and both sides to let them make up their own minds, but not to try to convince people to take up belief or not.

    The P/G film is pivotal for both sides, and whereas I may see a BF, someone else will indeed see some guy in a suit. Personally, I have no issue with that what so ever. Just because not everyone believes in BF, it is not a bad thing–it is the balance…and the balance keeps BOTH sides honest.

    Even if we discover a BF for real, I have a feeling the battle for the authenticity of the P/G film will probably continue to rage on…

  16. swnoel responds:

    An awful lot of speculation for something that has never been proven!

    In all of modern time , there has not been any proof this animal exists.

    While some may use the analagy that new species are discovered every year, many small animals but nothing close to BF, a large animal.

    Maybe the reason is they don’t exist , 40+ years and no one has videoed or filmed anything close, ever wondered why?

  17. Loren Coleman responds:

    The skeptically sounding swnoel puts down the “analagy” (sic) between new species being discovered and the possibilities that large, yet-to-be discovered primate species might still be out there.

    But he misrepresents the analogy, by stating that the discoveries are “many small animals but nothing close to BF, a large animal.”

    Please do your homework, swnoel. That just is not true, and I feel I have failed in discussing the “animals of discovery” and the “new species discovered” here, all these years.

    :-(

  18. Richard888 responds:

    I guess I can’t help but feel some annoyance at how the thread has evolved.

    At 12:21 praetorian offers a post grounded in scientific fact as to why it is extremely unlikely or impossible for the P/G BF to be a man in a costume. He cites an excerpt from Jeff Meldrum’s “Sasquatch-Legend Meets Science”. One would think that the strong anti ‘man in a suit’ arguments presented in that post would alter the course of the thread in favor of the film’s authenticity.

    Yet after 12:21, others continue to post their sentiments as to why they “feel” it is a hoax, totally disregarding the valuable information provided by praetorian. Isn’t this just like default human nature? If it had to be expressed in a sentence, that would be, “I don’t care about truth, I just care about what’s comfortable”. No wonder our planet is such a backwater.

    People… if you must say that the P/G BF is a hoax at least do so by invalidating praetorian’s arguments. But for crying out loud, don’t just ignore them!

  19. springheeledjack responds:

    Yep, what Loren said…they just discovered (this year) a sting ray 6 feet across +, and 1000 lbs or better and that’s just a sea critter…last year (or was it two years ago), they discovered a new species of squid 20some feet long hanging out near oil rigs…and there is a list of larger land critters discovered over the last fifty years–just not my favorites so I don’t keep those in my head:)

    Those are OOOOOOOOOOOOlllld arguments…as has been beat to death–there is PLENTY of space for an animal the size of BF to hide in just in the good ole US of A. There is plenty of “dead ground” where humans either rarely go or never have been in Kentucky, Louisiana, and plenty of other states.

    Like I said, while people are entitled to an opinion…it has to stay an opinion…because there is NO categorical proof against the existence of BF. It may not be likely, and it may be a small possibility in many people’s minds, and that IS okay.

    Just do not try to come out and say that it is proof positive that there is no BF…you’ve got nothing to back up a statement like that other than personal opinion…something the scoftics love to nay-say in the first place.

  20. korollocke responds:

    The whole human skeleton not matching up is due a film clips speculated scale being compared to a real human skeleton. Not a sound argument. I always here about measurements based of film clips but very rarely does anyone go to the location to measure what is seen around the object in question. Now I do seriously do think there could be north american moutain gorillas, why not? But other than supposed foot prints and hair and dung samples that turn out to be common animal samples no hard proof other than this debated film really shines through. Sure there are other clips but this one gets the most attention. Maybe were not looking in the right place…perhaps glacier national park?

  21. korollocke responds:

    As for why the film hasn’t been duplicated, the people with the skills and material required have better things to spend there time and money on. Other than debunking a hoax what would be gained?

  22. shownuff responds:

    I really hope i dont get booted for saying this, But last time i checked the name of this website is called Cryptomundo.. Not Skeptic magazine. or Skeptic.c_m. I am a little upset as to why anyone would post anything like this on this website. i get on here to hear about Cryptic Animals, If that is even a word. lol. But honestly if i wanted to know what skeptics were saying about anything i would Google Skeptics on Cryptic animals and find the number one site for that. Now, since this is a place so i believed to be strickly about awesome species of animals then please with no disrespect stop posting articles about what skeptics say. I, and i do believe alot of people care less, since its a site just for people who are interested in these subjects. I know im going to get alot of people responding to this giving there reasons why this is healthy to have on a site what the other parties are saying is healthy for us, But to be honest if i just followed what all skeptics said then wheres the magic in all this. I love Bigfoot and there whole existence. Its an awesome animal. And i dont need a body to prove to me that things are alive im just going to believe. And thats enough. So again if your a skeptic Why in the world are you on a site that is strickly about Cryptozooligy. PLease i hope i did not offend anyone. go with love my sisters and brothers. peace be on to you all.

  23. Loren Coleman responds:

    Dear Shownuff

    From your wording and tone, I think I can pick up that you are one of the younger readers of Cryptomundo. Great, I say, and I appreciate you coming here to enjoy stories about new species, cryptids, and other parts of the world of cryptozoology.

    But something that I also feel is important with my blog is the employment of critical thinking, for folks to hear other points of view, for you to challenge your mind with grounded arguments that debate facts and fictions that float around in the fields of hominology and cryptozoology.

    I feel I would not be doing my job as your humble blogger if I merely, parrotlike, only posted “true believer” sightings, new species tidbits, and photographs of mystery tracks. Cryptozoology, you must realize, is not about beliefs, but the evidence and the analyses of that evidence.

    I am sorry you are upset but only for a moment, for if I didn’t shake you up with the supposed insights from skeptics and debunkers, now and then, you, shownuff, won’t come to understand that the world of cryptozoology also includes them too.

    Enjoy the Quest,
    Loren

  24. praetorian responds:

    Skepticism is a good thing. It’s the cynic masquerading as a skeptic that you need to watch out for.

    While a skeptic approaches problems with a questioning but open mind, a cynic has already made up his mind. Debunking implies a predisposed disbelief. Very unscientific.

  25. Fhqwhgads responds:

    korollocke: Duplicating the Patterson film would generate a lot of news coverage, get made into a special for the Discovery Channel and/or National Geographic, etc. It’s probably cost-effective when the advertising value of the publicity is factored in.

    . . . .

    As for the appeal to go and buy a book: no. But the claim about the human skeleton superimposed on Patty does not appear plausible due to the fact that human beings differ in more than scale. A 7′ NBA player is not just a taller version of me; the proportions will be different. Ditto for a 4’10″ gymnast.

    Calebkitson: Why do you say, “the creature in the film seems to have a high degree of sentience”? The creature strides away, looks back over its shoulder, and keeps going. No tool use, symbolic art, or language. How is this different from a dog you chase out of your yard?

  26. Dan Gannon responds:

    korollocke,

    I must totally disagree with your statement, “The whole human skeleton not matching up i due a film clips speculated scale being compared to a real human skeleton. Not a sound argument.”

    The camera used was known, as well as which lenses were available. neither the camera, nor any of those lenses, introduces inestimable distortions in the recorded film images. Every lens introduces some distortion, but that distortion is easily factored in. If a “carnival mirror” type trick lens was specially constructed and used, it would be quite evident, because there is a lot of camera motion, and both the subject, and the background objects would reveal the distortion. A trick lens was obviously not used, and measuring bodily proportions (limbs, etc.) Is entirely valid for this and other films. Some coursework on photography or filmmaking would be instructive, for laymen to understand more of these concepts/phenomena. These facts are well understood, and not mysterious.

  27. praetorian responds:

    Hi Fhqwhgads-

    Modern software has allowed researchers to come up with a good estimate of the size of the creature in the Patterson film. Roger Patterson’s camera didn’t have many settings to manipulate and measurements of fixed objects and distances at the scene have been made. Once you have a measurement for the height of the creature, of course you can scale a human figure up or down for comparison.

    You are right that matching heights alone doesn’t take into account differences of proportion, but that has really been my point all along. The proportions of the creature in the film just aren’t human, particularly the ratio of the upper extremities to the lower. An NBA player isn’t just a taller version of you, but for both of you the ratio of your upper extremities to your lower would fall within a recognized human range. The ratios of the creature in the Patterson film do not fall within the recognized human range and can’t be made to fit within that range even if you allow for shoulder pads and arm extensions.

    Dr. Meldrum addresses this when he notes in his book that “The centers of rotation of the joints can be determined even in the absence of an absolute scale. Remember an index, being a ratio, has no units.” The index he’s referring to is the Intermembral (IM) Index I mentioned in an earlier post. It is defined as the combined length of the humerus and radius (i.e the distance between shoulder and wrist) dived by the combined length of the femur and tibia (i.e the distance between hip and ankle), multiplied by 100.

  28. springheeledjack responds:

    I am back referring to Loren’s last post–while yes, I agree that scoftics certainly would seem to have better things to do than come argue their cause on a site devoted to all things cryptozoological, it does serve a purpose.

    It keeps us grounded as cryptozoological skeptics, keeps us looking at evidence objectively and with a critical eye so that we do not become the “believers without thought” who just take everything at face value and accept it as truth.

    I do not accept, however, that the debunkers and the scoftics are the “skeptics.” It is everyone at this site and everyone who delves into these things that looks at evidence with an objective eye, testing ideas and looking for mundane explanations even in the face of wanting to find the holy grails of crypto-Z who are skeptics. Most of us on this site who take an account or evidence and honestly try to come to a conclusion even if that means there’s no cryptid are true skeptics.

    Debunkers and scoftics are not true skeptics–they hide under the guise of skepticism, but do not really practice what they preach. They do not look at these accounts and evidence with an open mind, but ignore unknowns and make blanket statements about the impossibility of cryptids based on their own limited views. In case you haven’t noticed, they irk me…just a bit.

    However, a skeptical point of view is a necessity in this science. If for no other reason than the fact that there are so many people out there with nothing better to do than to make fake BF claims, and create hoaxes for their fifteen minutes of fame…or possibly for that elusive dollar. The media is notorious for printing crap from hoaxers, just to sell papers for sure, but it does the rest of cryptozoology a disservice…don’t get me started there.

    Again, if you do not believe in BF, Nessie or the like, so be it–that is your opinion and your right. Just do not make statements about cryptids using phrases like “not possible”, “no real evidence” and lump all of the sightings into those categories just because one single incident turned out to be a bear or a hoax or a rogue wave. ‘Cause if you do, you are no better than those people who just believe everything they are told.

  29. korollocke responds:

    I think there are north american gorillas out there but a legendary manbeast is a bit hard to take. As for the patty clip yyou can clearly see a dividing line between the top and bottom of the suit if you will it much lighter colored than rest of it. why would that be in a living creature? I have seen silver back gorillas but not silver waisted ones.

  30. kittenz responds:

    I do not believe the P/G film is genuine, and none of the arguments put forth to try to validate its authenticity are convincing. Not accepting the P/G film as a genuine artifact is not that same thing as “not believing in bigfoot”. Maybe bigfoot do exist; where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, and people are seeing something out there.

    After four decades, there is no way to conclusively prove “Patty’s” ID either way. All one can do is examine the film and the arguments for and against, and decide for one’s self.

  31. springheeledjack responds:

    And Kittenz makes excellent point for what I refer to as skeptic versus scoftic. She comes out and says she doesn’t buy the P/G film and that the arguments aren’t convincing to her. That’s a skeptic.

    Doesn’t even matter whether she buys BF in spite of the p/g film or doesn’t believe in BF period. At least she has made a rational decision based on the evidence presented…rational as in personal evaluation of the footage and gone from there.

    The scoftic would have gone the extra mile and said that the p/g footage was a fake and because of that, any other evidence is thrown out and BF does not exist…even though he/she would really like it if there was…

    The point being that it is okay to not buy into everything presented as evidence…I do believe that is the point of this entire piece…Loren is trying to get everyone to look critically at the accounts coming our way…be thinking people…young and old…and assess the info for ourselves–and NOT taking the scoftics and the believe-it-at-all-costers opinions with anything more than a grain of salt.

    And then making your own decision, marking it as your own personal stance, and letting others do the same.

  32. DWA responds:

    Hey. I was on vacation, and missed this one, and why not add.

    Jerry: congratulations on the blog, dude!

    I guess I’ve said what I think about this. But reading the skeptical posts here, I see that it bears repeating, over and over.

    As to “the Great Implausibility,” it’s not really implausible at all. In fact, I’d expect it. A biologist should expect it. If a critter like this exists in North America, it is likely an omnivore. The evidence supports that. It would be mobile and wide-ranging, in all probability, much more so than the orangutan and the gorilla. The evidence supports that. (And interestingly, the public image – created by people who have never seen one – of a slow, knuckle-dragging vegetarian is controverted by the evidence.) It simply doesn’t make sense to me that the animal I’ve seen reported from Alaska to Florida wouldn’t have, pretty much, exactly that range if it were indeed real. This is – again, from the evidence – a very smart, very adaptable, very capable animal, significantly more of all those things than bears, and look how successful bears have been. There would be no reason, and should be no expectation, for such an animal to hide out in one of the less-promising larders among the places it has been reported – particularly if no one is looking for it.

    As to the evidence: of course sightings are evidence. Any scientist – who hasn’t taken off his science hat for his scoftic hat – knows that frequency and coherence equal scientifically-testable evidence. And that the fossil record has no bearing on what exists now. Plus, sightings, across the continent, are indeed substantiated by compellingly co-located physical evidence, of a consistent nature, again across the continent. R! S! R!

    As to Dahinden: fellow’s right. I care about nothing but what is on the P/G film. Patterson’s character does not figure into it. Outside of having the courage of his convictions and coming back with the evidence, Patterson is not among the considerations when you have that film. I have said it before and I will again until people start reading up and finding out I am right: everything known about him says (1) he couldn’t fake this and (2) he wouldn’t, because he was serious about this. I want to know what is on that film. Any opinion that does not address that, and only that, is of no value. Red herrings are no more welcome in science than anywhere else.

    In a scientific discussion, all positions must provide evidence for their claims! Period. The proponents do not have to provide proof! THAT IS SCIENCE’S JOB. The proponents have given science the material; science’s failure to even put the evidence up for review should not reflect on the diligence of the proponents. The people who have come up with nothing but baseless speculation are the so-called skeptics.

    There is no evidence that P/G was faked. Period. All the evidence is of an animal yet undocumented by science. I’m right, because – unlike the scientists who scoff at it – I think like a scientist, and review the evidence. And when it comes to this, they don’t.

  33. DWA responds:

    praetorian:

    “-The physiology of the creature in the film seems to preclude it being someone in a suit (knees and elbows in wrong place, other proportions incorrect). In fact, it would apparently be impossible to fit a human with a normal physiology into the “suit” if it is in fact a suit. Even if you could somehow cram some poor unfortunate in there, to walk convincingly and fluidly would be impossible.”

    Or, as a scientist put it back in 1968: you could get a human in that suit. But you’d have to break both his shoulders first.

    (See? They aren’t all ignorant when it comes to this topic.)

  34. DWA responds:

    swnoel:

    “An awful lot of speculation for something that has never been proven!

    In all of modern time , there has not been any proof this animal exists.”

    Um, swnoel, that’s why we’re here on Cryptomundo, and not at a zoo talking about the one we’re looking at behind bars.

    You’re on the wrong thread. There’s a film of one. That we are talking about here. And in all of modern time, there has not been so much as one scrap of evidence that it was faked. And TONS of evidence that that’s not only the real deal, but that lots of folks in lots of places have seen an animal like it.

    That’s called EVIDENCE. Proof and evidence are different, but scoftics don’t seem to get that yet.

    Until science bothers to look, well, no, we will never in all of modern (or future) time have proof. Just evidence – a big pile getting bigger by the week.

    Which of course means nothing in terms of its existence. That depends not a whit on what we think.

  35. DWA responds:

    Richard888: strength to your arm, boyo!

    “Yet after 12:21, others continue to post their sentiments as to why they “feel” it is a hoax, totally disregarding the valuable information provided by praetorian. Isn’t this just like default human nature? If it had to be expressed in a sentence, that would be, “I don’t care about truth, I just care about what’s comfortable”. No wonder our planet is such a backwater.

    People… if you must say that the P/G BF is a hoax at least do so by invalidating praetorian’s arguments. But for crying out loud, don’t just ignore them!”

    This is the standard scofitcal “position,” the exact same one they decry in the looser and more, shall we say, ‘creative’ proponents. Buncha yapperin’ backed not by Piece of Evidence One.

    Praetorian may brand himself a “complete amateur.” But like some others here, the man thinks like a scientist. ;-)

  36. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads:

    “korollocke: Duplicating the Patterson film would generate a lot of news coverage, get made into a special for the Discovery Channel and/or National Geographic, etc. It’s probably cost-effective when the advertising value of the publicity is factored in. ”

    One of the most interesting “arguments” I hear in defense of Pattyfake doesn’t refer to Pattyfake at all. It says the sas can’t be real; the discoverer would make a mint! It’s the Holy Grail of natural history! It would be found by now!

    What happens to everybody who reports one shows the truth of that old shibboleth.

    Here’s the truth: The guy who duplicates the P/G film – even with technology unattainable in 1997, much less ’67 – has just written himself one of the bigger checks in Hollywood history. And he will need it to pay for that job he did.

    Logic dictates this. A basic understanding of humans and Mammon, and you’re there.

    THAT’S the one you can take to the bank. Why look for an animal that everybody laughs at? Show the chops everyone in the movie biz kills for!

    Scoftics. PLEASE find another horse to wear out!

  37. DWA responds:

    And because I talk about Bill Munns a lot, there are a lot of folks on this thread who need to do some reading.

    Patterson’s character is immaterial. And an expert agrees with me.

    Read this. Then a favor, people: read the rest of his site before you come here with no evidence and act like you know, and the proponents are bumpkins.

    Bill Munns knows what he’s talking about. Until someone shows me – that would be EVIDENCE – he doesn’t.

  38. jerrywayne responds:

    There is an interesting costume recreation here. It is not perfect but it is as close as I’ve seen before.

    The Bob H./P. Morris recreation leaves a lot to be desired. However, while there are more dissimilar aspects of this recreation, one may find enough similarities to make it intriguing.

    As to eireman’s comments: I’ve lived long enough to see the sasquatch/bigfoot story virtually begin with Green and Sanderson digging around trying to uncover some sighting or rumor of sightings in the PNW in order to make their case. Sightings were very, very, rare and hence plausible (since we have no hard evidence, the creatures MUST be very rare and reclusive.)

    That state of affairs has been replaced with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of sightings from all over the United States, many in non-remote areas. What happened?

    I come from a family of farmers, outdoorsmen, and hunters. If I told my kin that Texas had a native population of giant, bipedal apes, as large or larger than grizzle bears, I would be laughed at and straight jacketed. They would know better. Yet, now, and not back in 1967, we are told that Texas has a population of bigfoot. What happened?

    When the Legend of Boggy Creek was released, I remember the press releases and interviews given about the Fouke Monster (Arkansas is a neighboring state). It was not promoted as a bigfoot story. Years later, I e-mailed Smokey Crabtree and asked him what he thought the Monster was. Since he was the chief promoter of the Fouke Monster via his book, one might have thought he would promote it as bigfoot. Instead, he said he thought it was some sort of hybrid (presumably singular).

    Today, the Fouke Monster is considered a bigfoot and the movie has inspired many to become bigfoot enthusiasts. What happened?

    I bring up Fouke only to show that the bigfoot phenomena has changed over time. The crypto community seems to have settled on a storyline that has hardened around the idea that America is home to a relic population of Gigantos. I humbly suggest we not dogmatise the bigfoot phenomena and discuss all possibilities freely, including the idea that bigfoot is a cultural myth.

    As to reported wildman/gorilla sightings prior to Green and Sanderson: well, lets just say that collecting newspaper stories is a Fortean thing to do.

  39. jerrywayne responds:

    I disagree with fellow skeptic kittenz. The Patterson film subject LOOKS real to me. It has that heavyset yet rangy look, muscle definition, and so forth. It looks more impressive than most Hollywood monster/gorilla creations of that era.

    I disagree with advocates who argue that it was virtually impossible for Patterson to have created what we see in his film.

    Two sidelines:

    While roaming around blog bigfoot country, I remember two blogs that were interesting.

    One blogger noted that Ostman was still alive when the Patterson film was made and Ostman said that the film subject was not the type of animal he (in)famously encountered.

    Another blogger noted that the Patterson film had been edited and spliced. A missing piece, apparently viewed by some advocates, show the Patterson film subject apparently stumble and almost fall.

    It is this missing piece that has given rise to the idea that Patterson’s bigfoot was shot while being filmed. On the other hand, this might reasonably show that a man-in-ape-suit is not as sure footed as he seems—his not so surefootedness was edited out.

    These two blogs may simply be expressions of rumors. Does anyone know more?

    DWA,

    I think Munns is certainly well qualified to look into this matter (Patterson’s film). More so, perhaps, than anthropologists. However, I need to wait for the critically analysis of his work to be published. I’m not qualified to critique Munns’ work.

  40. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    As to Munns, I agree with you. *I* don’t profess to have the expertise to analyze him in detail. But what he says makes sense, shows how hard something like this would have been, and awaits refutation.

    As to the “stumble sequence”: Until I see it, it doesn’t exist, and it doesn’t do us much good to speculate about it. It looks like a seamless sequence, no splices, to my admittedly untrained eye. I have no idea where such a sequence could have been cut.

    This deserves comment:

    “Sightings were very, very, rare and hence plausible (since we have no hard evidence, the creatures MUST be very rare and reclusive.)

    That state of affairs has been replaced with THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of sightings from all over the United States, many in non-remote areas. What happened?”

    Sightings were rare because the Internet didn’t exist yet, nor did cable TV, which have helped by providing many new channels for eyewitnesses to report. (I’ve lost count of the number of people who found out on cable that they could report their encounter on the Web.) Also, over time, the volume of reports is bound to generate more reports, simply because people start seeing, when they go on the Web to think about filing their sighting, that maybe they aren’t crazy. (The vast majority of reports are filed years – usually a decade or more – after the encounter.)

    The creature doesn’t have to be all that rare or all that reclusive. The sole prerequisite: no one believes you when you report one.

    Example. Bill Draginis’s site has a report of a sas that crossed Interstate 64 – in broad daylight – with many cars on the road. (I’ve read at least a couple of similar ones from other states.) There must have been, conservative estimate here, 50 or more people who saw the animal clearly. So. What do you think of only one filing a report? IMPOSSIBLE!

    So it doesn’t get believed. That simple. Would YOU have reported it? Neither did all those other folks who simply didn’t want to endure the ridicule.

    Speculative? Sure. But makes perfect sense.

    (Oh. Not sure what reports you are reading. But sasquatch sightings occur, virtually without exception, in remote areas, or right on the fringes of them. I used to think that wasn’t true. But then I read reports.)

  41. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    You are correct: “sightings were rare because the Internet didn’t exist yet, nor did cable TV.”
    We agree here. Our interpretations diverge, however, on the issue of why this is so.

    I think it is reasonable to assume the exponential increase in bigfoot sightings after the spread of cable TV and the advent of the internet (replacing men’s entertainment magazines as the primary cultural propagator of the bigfoot story) was due to the mass culture advancement of The Idea that our land is populated with Monster Apes or Ape-men, The ensuing mass suggestion, a parasitic trickster sub-culture, and encouragement from earnest advocacy, all contributed to belief in, and resulted “sightings” of, an animal in locations where only decades earlier it was apparently absent in.

    You write that bigfoot sightings “occur, virtually without exception, in remote areas, or right on the fringes of them.” Would you agree “on the fringes” of “remote areas” may be considered, as I wrote, “non-remote areas?”

    And we must have different ideas as to what a “remote area” is. You have a “sas that crossed Interstate 64- in broad daylight- with many cars on the road.” You suggest “50 or more people…saw the animal clearly” (although, based on your comments, 50 or more people DID NOT report such a sighting!). Do you see the incongruous nature of your comments?

    I tracked down the Patterson subject “stumble” quote. It comes from Bobbie Short as she posted at the JREF Forum, Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film, Part 3 – Page 52. Here is her quote (and she is a bigfoot advocate):

    “Patty does not go down in the first part of the film, she flails and bends forward and almost goes down but we don’t see it for the splicing and this is towards the last of the ‘less than 50 seconds’ she is filmed out of a 8 minute roll of film. That roll has been so hacked up, it’s ridiculous. I would give any thing to see what was edited. Wouldn’t we all?”

    Ms. Short on her post said she would upload the frames at her website Bigfoot Encounters, but she apparently has not done so to date, or I haven’t found it. (Her post was made in May of this year.) Oddly, her comments were made without fanfare or further interest?!

    Her comments, if true, have ramifications. For one, if you believe the film subject is a man in a suit, it takes away the “too surefooted and fluid in walk to be a man in a suit” argument used by some advocates. For another, it implies the film was edited at some point to remove frames embarrassing to its authenticity or the Patterson storyline. And, to be fair, it would also call into question Bob Heironimus’ story, since he does not mention he almost fell down while pretending to be bigfoot.

    This is another illustration of the Patterson Paradox (the paradox is ignored by all posters above). To wit: The film looks authentic, but everything surrounding it looks shady.

  42. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    Hey amigo. I’m at the closeout of the TX Bigfoot Conference (y’all missed a great time!) and have some downtime to comment before all of us truck off to the Tyler Zoo.

    You say

    “I think it is reasonable to assume the exponential increase in bigfoot sightings
    after the spread of cable TV and the advent of the internet (replacing men’s
    entertainment magazines as the primary cultural propagator of the bigfoot story)
    was due to the mass culture advancement of The Idea that our land is populated
    with Monster Apes or Ape-men, The ensuing mass suggestion, a parasitic trickster
    sub-culture, and encouragement from earnest advocacy, all contributed to belief
    in, and resulted “sightings” of, an animal in locations where only decades
    earlier it was apparently absent in.”

    I think that it is reasonable to assume that the increase in reporting outlets brought the opportunity to report sightings to large numbers of people who didn’t previously know that they could do this anonymously. Many reports come in years – frequently decades – after the sighting, when someone who didn’t have the option of the Internet at the time of the sighting either now has it, and has just found out how they can use it in this case, or is brought to it by a Net-savvy person who has wanted them to report it. I think mine is a much more plausible explanation. We tend to presume people to be level-headed and cautious, and not willy-nilly prone to suggestion, and our daily experience verifies this over and over and over. I know what I would do with a sighting; and I think it reasonable to make an educated guess that most people are at most wihin a standard deviation or so of me on this. The kooks and cranks don’t make the websites; they get dropped before you read them. The serious ones are the ones that are left.

    “You write that bigfoot sightings “occur, virtually without exception, in remote
    areas, or right on the fringes of them.” Would you agree “on the fringes” of
    “remote areas” may be considered, as I wrote, “non-remote areas?”

    Yes, but it’s irrelevant. Why? Because many animals who stick generally to remote areas are seen, frequently, on their fringes. It’s more a red herring than a serious issue. Reports – when you read them – show that the sasquatch behaves similarly to other elusive species, which do occasionally get seen on the fringes of the large areas of undeveloped habitat that they generally frequent.

    “And we must have different ideas as to what a “remote area” is. You have a “sas
    that crossed Interstate 64- in broad daylight- with many cars on the road.” You
    suggest “50 or more people…saw the animal clearly” (although, based on your
    comments, 50 or more people DID NOT report such a sighting!). Do you see the
    incongruous nature of your comments?”

    Well, as I tend never to make an assertion without evidence, I can tell you, having been on that stretch, that the overall impression of the areas on either side of it is, well, quite, quite remote. The road is basically a minor intrusion on a substantial area of undeveloped habitat. As many, if not most, of the roads in North America tend to be. Spend a lot of time on the road – as much, say, as I do – and you will be impressed how little civilization you see along them, in this supposedly people-saturated continent of ours, most of the time. Mountain lions and wolves are frequently seen crossing roads (and sometimes picking dogs and cats off porches). But the roads and the houses are right on the brink of huge areas of suitable habitat. That sasquatch are sometimes seen under such circumstances should be expected, given what we know about animals that tend generally to assume the same cryptic profile. The difference: when you say a mountain lion took Fifi, everyone believes you. That simple.

    As to Bobbie Short’s quote: I never use the proponents’ stumbles as evidence against the animal. I have no idea what film she was looking at, as almost no one else describing it has Patty doing what she describes. The reason for the absence of fanfare and comment, I couldn’t tell you. I certainly don’t take it seriously, as there is no evidence presented by her backing her assertions. Which again, are echoed by almost no one else. Sore thumbs like this (and MK Davis) among the proponents are a serious problem with crypto. But they reflect nothing on the reality of the animal. John Napier – a sasquatch proponent – pronounced P/G a fake. I found his assertion unconvincing; it was a subjective impression, unbacked by evidence. (As is Short’s assertion that the sas is human because its foot resembles ours.)

    “For one, if you believe the film subject is a man in a suit, it takes away the “too surefooted and fluid in walk
    to be a man in a suit” argument used by some advocates.”

    Well, if you read that again, another way to read it is: if you have a preconceived notion, you may just grab anything that backs that notion, because you badly want to believe it. Once again, I’d love to see the film Short saw. But it’s not the P/G film. My eyes tell me that.

    “This is another illustration of the Patterson Paradox (the paradox is ignored by
    all posters above). To wit: The film looks authentic, but everything surrounding
    it looks shady.”

    As I have said, more than once: I don’t care if Patterson gut-shot his grandma to get the money to rent the camera. i want to know what is on the film.

    Take care, amigo.

  43. Loren Coleman responds:

    DWA and Jerrywayne, gentlemen, I’m sure you both realize that the reasons behind where and why Sasquatch are seen in rural areas, borderland parameters, and the fringe areas, of course, are that it takes a human and a Sasquatch to be there and the timing to be nearly perfect for that event to transpire. It is this narrow interface in their “wheres” and “whens” that must occur for the reports to take place.

    Thus, the statement, “many animals who stick generally to remote areas are seen, frequently, on their fringes” may not be the whole truth. It may not be as true as the fact that this is the zone where non-human animals, unknown and known, would be seen perhaps most frequently by humans that overlap into these normal non-human habitats. Humans are creatures of urban areas and of residences placed in a few rural areas. They are the fringe dwellers, not the non-human animals, including Bigfoot, lions, tigers and bears.

  44. jerrywayne responds:

    Some folks have noted that the “Patterson Paradox”, my small piece Loren posted, seemed to be made up of mere feelings or assertions. This is understandable. The piece was meant to be an introduction to a much longer article (several posts, actually, at another thread), but unfortunately, stuff conspired against me and I was unable to finish.

    The idea that a skeptic should not post at Cryptomundo seems odd to me. We should all be looking for the truth concerning the bigfoot phenomena. And there are many points of view, many issues, and many facts to sort through on this issue.

    I don’t think we should be, or really could be, polemical concerning the phenomena. Let us state what we think and why we think it. If it turns out that a real biological entity lies behind the phenomena, I’ll be as excited as anyone else here. And, if such animals do not exist, we still have a phenomena to try to make sense of.
    That quest would be exciting too.

    The posts above deal mainly with skepticism and the real looking subject of Patterson’s film. Overlooked was my emphasis on the Patterson Paradox. I still think that would be a fruitful starting point, or an organizing tool, in discussing the film.

    A few replies (even though I may be talking in an empty room now):

    Sasafrasquatch (post 3): In fact, I did not write “look at the film! It is obviously a hoax.”I wrote the opposite. The film subject looks real, or real enough, for us to be arguing about its authenticity over forty years later.

    PhotoExpert (p.10): Your post is petulant and full of invectives. I’ll address two of your points:
    Dr. Krantz argued that the film subject looks behind by turning its shoulders and not by peering over its shoulder, a move he notes is typical of apes (because of the position of their heads is relatively lower than that found in humans). Ape costume maker Phillip Morris says the same maneuver is necessary in a hooded and masked, shoulder padded gorilla suit.

    The wonderful Jane Goodall on a NPR talk show, when asked about yeti/bigfoot, did say, “Well now you’ll be amazed when I tell you that I am sure they exist…” Later, however, she qualifies and tempers her enthusiasm: “Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, ‘Where is the body?’ You know, why isn’t there a body? I can’t answer that, and maybe they don’t exist, but I want them to.”

    praetorian (p. 4): I’m not so sure your “convincing evidence” is totally objective.

    “physiology”- It is disputable as to whether the film subject exhibits proportions that are not human. If the subject IS human (costumed), his proportions would necessarily be distorted. Since we do not know fundamental facts about the distance and angle of the camera relative to the subject, it would be hazardous to make statements of certainty concerning proportions.

    “gait”- Your statement is subjective and I would dare to guess influenced by arguments made by Drs. Krantz and Meldrum. Their arguments on this issue, to a large degree, are no longer considered valid. I’ve seen the film countless times and never thought the gait looked too far removed from human (my subjective view).

    “size”- Over the years advocates themselves have studied the film and placed the subject in a size range that could imaginatively be stated between the size of the Fantastic Four’s The Thing (6 foot, 500 lbs.) and the Incredible Hulk (7 foot, 1040 lbs.)! The “recent analysis” you mention alleges a POSSIBLE camera lens type to support a Hulk sized bigfoot on the film. This is not the lens, I believe, Patterson said he used.
    And remember, the early statements by Gimlin suggest the subject was just over 6 foot tall.

    “musculature”- If you peruse the special effects and costume guys who post about Patterson’s film at JREF and The Bigfoot Forums, you’ll find counter arguments about the “technology available when the film was made.” I believe Munns himself has made a few concessions (to a point) concerning this issue.

    “track castings”- Patterson and Gimlin estimated their film subject at well under a thousand pounds. However, those who have studied the casts, photos, and testimony relating to the tracks, have estimated the weight of the subject at anywhere from 1400 pounds to 2250 pounds! This is a glaring inconsistency, not the supportive consistency you maintain.

    “midtarsal break”- As you note, a mid-tarsal break is a feature of the feet of the Great Apes. Unfortunately fatal for your argument, the Patterson film subject does not have the feet of an ape! Look at page 236 of Dr. Meldrum’s book “Sasquatch” and you will find a sketch of foot impressions of some of the Great Apes and a sasquatch. The sasquatch foot is radically different from those of the apes: it is essentially human, in giant form! A little secret: there is really no reason to think a biped with human like feet would possess a mid-tarsal break! If such a biped does exist, the flex would be vestigial, not functional. (And why do we not find in bigfoot tracks creases in the padded bottom of the foot where the foot “breaks”?)

    praetorian (p.9): “intermembral index”- Since one finds the IM by measuring bone itself, or by feeling for bone in a live subject, it is not possible to extract such measurement accurately from a film, and especially from a film subject moving away at angles. Dr. Meldrum himself admits that IM applied to Patterson’s bigfoot is approximate or an estimating.

  45. jerrywayne responds:

    Loren and DWA,

    Hope you guys had fun. Early in the week, I thought I might have been able to attend. But by week’s end, making a living interfered again. It would have been a blast to meet you guys and Gimlin.

    On the issue of sightings and locations, my underlying concern is not that such animals could be so distributed or sighted. My problem is that such animals could be so distributed and sighted and NOT be conclusively “discovered.”

    After all, we are not dealing with ghosts, are we?

  46. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    One more thing, and I HAVE to get back to work.

    The Short quote: My impression concerning her comments is that she has seen an “out-take” from the Patterson film that shows the subject flail and almost fall (presumably an out-take that has caused M.K. Davis to believe the film’s bigfoot has been shot).

    Are her comments true? Or is this a hoax? I have no idea, but it is a potentially important development if her statements are true.

  47. DWA responds:

    Loren/Jerry:

    See what trouble that word “remote” can cause? :-D

    Loren: what you said, actually, is what I did. Here’s the deal with sightings: they occur almost invariably in, or on the fringes of, large areas of what appears from evidence compiled so far to be suitable habitat. How’s that? That profile works with sightings of wolves, mountain lions, and bighorn sheep, to name just a few other species.

    And as to scientific confirmation, Jerry (which is what I presume you mean by “discovery”: when the vast majority of people believe it doesn’t exist – or pretend they do – it’s very hard to get from sightings to confirmation. Confirmation only happens when the mainstream of science gets involved. Which it hasn’t, because scientists have jobs and want to keep them.

    (From my experience talking to John Bindernagel and John Mionczynski at the conference, I wouldn’t want to disagree too much with them, were I a scientist. But science – which is almost perfect – is practiced by scientists, who aren’t.)

  48. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne: this deserves comment.

    ““midtarsal break”- As you note, a mid-tarsal break is a feature of the feet of the Great Apes. Unfortunately fatal for your argument, the Patterson film subject does not have the feet of an ape! Look at page 236 of Dr. Meldrum’s book “Sasquatch” and you will find a sketch of foot impressions of some of the Great Apes and a sasquatch. The sasquatch foot is radically different from those of the apes: it is essentially human, in giant form! A little secret: there is really no reason to think a biped with human like feet would possess a mid-tarsal break! If such a biped does exist, the flex would be vestigial, not functional. (And why do we not find in bigfoot tracks creases in the padded bottom of the foot where the foot “breaks”?)”

    Short answer: Meldrum and Krantz find abundant mid-tarsal break evidence both in the Patterson film and in trackways. This is not something that would appear routinely in tracks. (A skeletal feature, it won’t be seen in most impressions.) But in long trackways it occurs quite a bit. Meldrum has also found apparent tarsal-break pointers in fossil hominid footprints, the feet otherwise superficially similar to ours.

    Evidence is telling those who have studied the matter that while they may print like ours, much of the time, the squatch’s feet operate distinctly differently. I’ve read at least two sighting reports that lend credence to this, one from AK and one from MT. Both reports are from witnesses who wouldn’t have given sas foot morphology a thought. They just happened to notice things they considered odd, something I wouldn’t think too many witnesses would do. (I’m probably not focusing on any feet but my own, getting me out of there, if I see one.) These two had help: one had an extended observation of a female on a shoreline, from a boat, while the other was in a truck, at night, with a good profile view of one crossing a road.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



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