Sasquatch Coffee

Today the Patterson-Gimlin Film Turns 45

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 20th, 2012

Patty

At TODAY’S < a href="http://cryptopalooza.com/">Cryptopalooza conference in Jefferson, Texas, I will speak of the Patterson-Gimlin footage’s filming and now importance, tied to this date of October 20th. This will mark the 45th anniversary of the event, and, my congratulations, once again, to two gentlemen for obtaining the best single, multifacted piece of evidence for the classic North American Sasquatch, Bigfoot, or Oh-Mah. Despite numerous attempts to discredit it, my sense is this one grows better with age.

Anthropologist Grover Krantz, one of the good guys who sadly passed away on Valentine’s Day a few years ago, once estimated that about “100 million potentially visible track events” have occurred “in the last 40 years in areas where people coexist” with Bigfoot. That turns out to be about five possible track finds occurring every minute in the Pacific Northwest. Sightings, of course, occur much less frequently. A good piece of documentary-quality film footage of a Bigfoot is an even rarer event.

Why do I think the P-G footage is authentic?

I feel it combines many forms of evidence:

1. The event occurred in an area, in context, known for Native American traditions of these forms of hominoids. Locally, the cryptid is called oh-mah.

2. There are contemporary sightings, from the 1950s onward, here. Jerry Crew’s famed Bluff Creek finds of the footprints, and first use of the name “Bigfoot” date from those 1958 encounters.

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

4. It was smelled.

5. It was sensed by the horses. Patterson’s horse threw him off.

Photos from site: Lyle Laverty, October 1967, Bluff Creek, California.

6. A trackway of 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, historically now known as a Bigfoot. Jeff Meldrum’s, following in Grover Krantz’s steps (no pun intended), are the two major analyses of them.

Roger Patterson

7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analysis of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probably recording an unknown primate, and it was not an elaborate or casual hoax, as assumed by debunkers and some closed-minded skeptics, in a few cases.

For me, all of the above combine (pancake, if you will) into the virtual and visible vortex of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, short of a living or dead specimen, to date.

Bob Gimlin

Here is how this specific Bigfoot incident is described in my The Field Guide of Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates, which I coauthored with Patrick Huyghe.

October 20, 1967 Location: Bluff Creek, California, USA Witnesses: Roger Patterson, Robert Gimlin

While riding in the Six Rivers National Forest early one afternoon, Roger Patterson, an expert rodeo rider, and Robert Gimlin, a part Native American outdoorsman, rounded a bend and spotted a large upright creature on one of the creek’s sandbars. The dark, full-figured creature was covered with short hair (even on its large pendulous breasts) and possessed a sagittal crest. This bony ridge on top of the head, which supports heavy jaw muscles, has only been found, in primates, on certain fossil hominoids (especially Paranthropus) and among a few male apes, baboons, and other large modern species.

Patterson’s small Welsh pony smelled the creature and reared, bringing both pony and rider to the ground. But Patterson got up, grabbed his camera from the saddlebag, and while running toward the creature, took 24 feet of color film with the rented 16mm hand-held Kodak movie camera. The creature walked steadily away into the forest, turning its head once toward the camera. Gimlin, meanwhile, remained with his horse, a 30.06 rifle in hand, fearing his friend might be attacked. But the Bigfoot soon disappeared into the woods. Immediately after the filming and in the days that followed, casts of the tracks were taken from the many footprints–each 14.5 inch long by 6 inch wide–the creature had left in the sandy blue-gray clay soil.

Similar footprints found in this area over the years had drawn the two men from Yakima, Washington, to search the area and now they had 952 frames of color film to support the existence of this 6-to-7 feet tall, 500- to 700-pound creature. While scientists who have examined this footage remain divided on its authenticity to date–claims about men-in-suits from Hollywood notwithstanding–no firm evidence has surfaced to cast serious doubts on the film or the events that produced it. In particular, the apparent movement of the muscle underneath the hair argues strongly against a hoax. Native Americans, First Nation Canadians, and Alaskan Inuits all have legends, going back centuries of giant hairy men and women like the one seen in this film.


Bob Gimlin today, photo by Todd Neiss.

I can’t wait for the 50th anniversary!

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.


114 Responses to “Today the Patterson-Gimlin Film Turns 45”

  1. volmar responds:

    There’s no doubt in my mind the Patterson-Gimlin footage is the real deal: The proof Sasquatch is an animal, not just a legend. Too bad many scientists never gave it a chance, they simply knew it had to be a hoax and did not bother to study it.

  2. BronzeSteel responds:

    This video was a hot topic with my friends and myself growing up. I checked out every book on all cryptozoology topics. In another 45 years people will still talk about this video.

  3. Ed W. responds:

    The P.G. film handy proven anything yet, and it never will. Why? Because it’s too blurry. Nobody on the one side can prove that they beyond question that there’s muscle mass movement under the fur “that couldn’t be faked” and nobody can prove that they see definitive proof of a zipper from the other side, even though many of the true believers and non-believers will insist that one or the other of those claims is unquestionable.

    In fact those “that couldn’t have been be faked” claims always put the whole “it’s almost impossible prove a negative” issue on the other foot for a change. I remember believing those dermal ridges can’t be faked claims until I saw some one Sunday afternoon on TV.

    While cryptid many fans are fond of calling people who say “I won’t believe it until I see a dead body” close minded, they seem to be OK with the people who say “They’re things are out there, and NOTHING will ever convince me that they’re not.”.

  4. Ulysses responds:

    This is the Mona Lisa of Cryptozoology, nothing can touch this priceless film and yes, it’s real or at least I think it is. Roger Patterson, your work stands and Bob Gimlin, God Bless as you are a part of history that endures.

  5. Novelhawk responds:

    The PG film is the definitive bigfoot cameo.

    I don’t know if it is legitimate, but when I watch that thing in the video walk into the woods at the end of the short clip (even more so than when she/it turns and looks back, I think I am looking at a real thing.

    No other bigfoot video has ever been revealed that shows the same combination of clarity, time in frame, supporting evidence, and non-sapiens-like mobility. Or if there has been one, I haven’t seen it.

    I wish there was a Nessie film this good (since Nessie is and always has been my first love in the cryptid realm of possibilities).

    So did Patterson and Gimlin really catch a bigfoot on camera, or did they and any others on the trip two weeks into nowhere stow a gorilla suit in a saddle bag for the shot?

  6. Desertdweller responds:

    I admit to being skeptical of a lot of things I see on this site, but not this one. I think this creature is real, and I think this film is a real recording of it.

    The preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion. It is not a blobsquatch: the pictures are sharp and clear, with good lighting.

    The story behind it has been consistent, and there is plenty of footprint evidence.

    Everything is there except for a biological sample. It is enough to convince me.

  7. Alamo responds:

    Unquestionably still the definitive Bigfoot film, even after all these years. So many compelling elements, but it’s the smallest that have the greatest weight for me. The distribution of hair (thicker concentration of follicles in the right places), the behavior and mannerisms of the creature, it’s odd yet natural looking gait, lastly, I have to admit, it’s the boobies – I have highly attuned fake booby detectors… these are real.

    I credit this footage with inspiring the young me to search for answers at the fringes… much respect to the godfathers of the modern search for Bigfoot.

  8. shownuff responds:

    I was in 3rd grade when I first saw Patty. I first saw her on In Search Of and then Sightings. Pretty cool shows when I was a kid. Now I go back on Utube and see all of these old shows and say man I am old. and my pops just smirks.. Ty to the Patterson and Gimlin Family. W/ them I would have never known about this beautiful species of beings.

  9. PhotoExpert responds:

    I agree! This footage has stood the test of time, almost half a century. Forty-five years have passed and still, the PG footage remains the best evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.

    There are a couple of other pieces of footage that try to come close. The PG footage stands as “king of the hill” as far as authenticity is concerned.

  10. chewbaccalacca responds:

    To my mind, there’s one reason in particular why this footage is so compelling: to date, no one has successfully replicated the look of this creature. I’ve seen any number of monkey suits and man-made Sasquatch costumes over the years, and they bear no resemblance at all to the figure in this footage, from the sheen of its coat to the bulging of its muscles, or even its lumbering gait. Considering all the advances in special effects make-up, one would think it would be a relatively easy affair to achieve were this simply a hoax, yet that hasn’t happened.

  11. Cuyahoga responds:

    The incident description in The Field Guide of Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates mentions that Patterson and Gimlin noticed that the creature possessed a sagittal crest. Can one truly see a sagittal crest on a primate while its muscles are attached to the bony structure? The bone itself is there to support the massive musculature of the jaws for chewing, but the crest is not visible unless one is looking at a cleaned skull. This leads me to wonder why they mentioned it
    in their account. Mentioning the shape of the head would be one thing, but to be sure that it possessed a sagittal crest underneath the flesh is another.

  12. Ploughboy responds:

    I guess I’ve always been just one of those naive fools who has never doubted that this film shows what it purports to show. I remember it transfixing me the first time I saw it, at the time it was first published, and it has ever since. I mean, just LOOK at it/her. For the sake of verifying that I just wasn’t taken in as an impressionable youth, I’ve since read as much analysis as I could about it. Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s treatment alone is enough to make a body cry “enough already…..I get it!” If there were not another single documented encounter since this was filmed, I’d still contend that it stands as a stark challenge to an accepted (and waning) zoological paradigm. But, as we should all know here, there have been thousands since. Attempts to explain it as a manmade product are laughably feeble and insult the intelligence. Dare I say this, that it is art? Well, “poetry in motion” is not too far a stretch, I don’t think. Here is just another stunning example of God’s handiwork. If it doesn’t hold you in awe, well, you might be holding out for the unobtainable, at least on this plane. She is beautiful.

  13. DWA responds:

    Down with Ploughboy on this one.

    I mean, OK, I can’t say the sasquatch is real, because I don’t have in front of me anything I would call proof. (A personal sighting is one thing I would call proof, to me.) But science blew it on this one, by true belief in its own perfection, which as long as people practice science, won’t be.

    This was the first bigfoot video, folks. Nobody had done this before. (And for some reason, this little telling fact is never mentioned.) And in 45 years since, WITH A MODEL RIGHT DAMN THERE, no one has come close? What do you think are the odds on that one?

    Here is what the odds on that one are:

    So ridiculously stupidly low that science is under the gun – has been, for 45 years now – to tell us what that is.

    Shame it is indeed that science is practiced by too many who do not understand that little – telling – fact.

  14. skimmer responds:

    45 years of intense scrutiny. 45 years of debunking. 45 years of withstanding the assault of technology. It’s still standing.

    If it was a man in a suit, it was the best suit ever constructed with perhaps the most nuanced actor ever born inside. If it was a staged event it was the most bold staging ever done in this genre and the most detailed. This is not some hazy still with important features conveniently masked in shadow, but a film of a real animal moving in the open casually and without apparent guile. It doesn’t run, it doesn’t lurch away in some dramatic ape-like fashion, it just walks away and out distances the two men who are held in check by nothing greater than wonder.

    Nothing since has been more convincing.

  15. Ploughboy responds:

    Cuyahoga….unless I miss my guess, it was because “sagittal crest” carried a little more gravitas than “pointy head.”

  16. Adam Davies responds:

    I had the pleasure of the veracity of this film being explained to me by Professor Meldrum while I was in China in 2008 filming an episode of MonsterQuest. I had wondered about it since I first saw it on Arthur C. Clarke’s mysterious World series as a teenager. I am really glad I got such a great opportunity, as it ultimately led me onto my first Bigfoot expedition this year. Washington State is beautiful.

  17. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    While the the feasibility of a sustainable population of enormous bipedal creatures roaming, undiscovered – scientifically, at least – across North America is clearly an issue, there remains the matter of the P/G film.
    There is no middle ground here; no fuzzy, out-of-focus, blobsquatch to ponder; no it-might-be-a-bear; or, perhaps, a misidentified hunter. It’s clearly not a tree stump, a rock, or otters walking in a row! :-) Either it is a man in a suit, or it is the real deal – visual evidence of a large, upright-walking hominid existing in our midst – no two ways about it.
    Other evidence aside, until/unless Patty is proven to be a hoax, one cannot honestly discount the possibility that Sasquatch exists.

  18. sasquatch responds:

    REAL

  19. Alamo responds:

    Amazing work also on the digital remaster… I think a lot of credit goes out to those folks as well. Absolutely love the Patty video loop at the top of the page, it allows our brains to see patterns not evident in the single frames or original film played straight through.

    I agree with Skimmer, it would have taken director Stanley Kubrick (famous for spending incredible time and effort on details you’d never see without a microscope), producer James Cameron (famous for throwing obscene amounts of money at projects) and John Chambers (world class artist of deception) to fake this even today.

    I’ll give an example, take a look at the video loop at the top of the page. Observe carefully as the right leg comes down, you can clearly see the impact ripple through the quadriceps… like when a Sumo wrestler slams his foot down. Also, look as it glances over at Patterson… how the swing of the right arm is totally coordinated with the glance, the hand reaches apogee at the exact moment the face turns. It turned its body in order to turn its head, not something humans need to do… so the fact that the move is perfectly coordinated (as opposed to the head turning first and the arm swinging back only afterwards because the mask caught on the shoulder) either means it’s authentic or they added Dian Fossey to the dream team of collaborators I listed above.

  20. squatchman responds:

    I used to be a non-Patterson-Gimlin film believer, but after reading a book and looking at the footprints, I was convinced that the film was real. The “Hoax Claims” don’t make any sense, and the film looks fine!!! I hope this will be the year that the existance of the sasquatches will be proven!!

  21. DWA responds:

    I had to come back to note a few things.

    1) No truly negative takes in any post! Either everybody’s coming around, or we’ve worn down the scoftics. Not that the latter really have an argument. Until they do, they should simply keep their minds open and their mouths shut…unless they have something constructive to say.

    1a) Nothing is constructive that does not address what is on the film! Could care less about principals’ “character.” Could they do this? Could anyone, then?

    2) Ed W. says “it’s too blurry.” Actuallly, it isn’t. That clarity is state-of-art for that film at that time at that distance. Were it a relative of mine (and heehee it may be), I’d know which one. I saw a lot of home movies as a kid and I know. It’s more than clear enough for researchers to draw the conclusions they have as to what it might be.

    3) That is, “might.” As Ed W. also says, this can’t prove anything. The best it could ever serve to do – and it should have done that – is stimulate scientists’ curiosity and open their minds. I have been fooled before, so I am certainly not one to say it’s impossible.

    4) What P/G serves to do is provide clear-cut evidence of a possible flaw in the North American faunal paradigm. (Let me cut off, right now, any dissenters. “Evidence” is not “proof.” Unless of course science blesses it.) Until there is proof that this was faked, here’s your status: the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to its authenticity. It remains essentially unchallenged. It is not good enough to say “it could be fake.” The chances that it is appear, at the moment, infinitesimal.

    Unless someone knows something they’re not telling the world.

    There is a reason we’re still talking about this. Amazing things tend to be that way.

  22. Ploughboy responds:

    DWA, nicely put.

    As you know, my fascination with the P/G film goes well beyond whether this shows the real-true Sasquatch. I’m more than convinced that it does. What I find even more worthy of analysis though is the reaction it elicits from large numbers of people who have viewed it. We know that there are those who would seem to rather do a standing backbend, and touch their forehead to the ground, than to honestly confront what this footage brings. I’ve studied and pondered it plenty, and at one time I thought the default reaction of most viewers is nothing less than the stubborn resistance to the challenge of the primacy of man, or it was just off the weirdness scale for most to take seriously. There is some of that in evidence, of course, but now I have a broader hypothesis.

    You and I have discussed the phenomenon of the “uncanny chasm/valley/canyon” first described by robotics researcher Masahiro Mori. For those not familiar with it, a quick web search will pull up any number of discussions. If you’ve ever gotten inexplicably creeped-out by viewing Tom Hanks’ character in “The Polar Express”, or by those Nasonex adverts that ran a couple of years ago, you’ve experienced this. Better minds than mine have considered what might be the source of that, and what possible evolutionary purpose it might serve.

    Here is just my amateur take on how that reaction intersects with Sasquatch encounters:

    Acceptance is increasing for the proposition that the line of descent that (for now) concludes with homo sapiens is not a “line” at all. There was/is nothing inevitable at all about our(for now) dominance as the reigning biped. The evidence is increasing that the planet put forth many contenders for that starring role, and their existence coincided with ours for a long, long time. Sasquatch (and who knows how many others?) may embody the last survivors of that competition. There is something buried deeply in the limbic system of our brains that can’t/won’t tolerate a similar “other” in our world. That our ancestors hunted/killed these competitors and/or out competed them for scarce resources seems to me to be a given. (See: History of Man)

    This is not to say that our socialization can’t trump this instinct. To our credit, it seems to. All of us have probably read accounts of hunters who has had his crosshairs trained on a Sasquatch only to conclude there was something inherently wrong with pulling the trigger. That better nature though does not prevent the witness from being deeply freaked out about the whole encounter, and the reaction seems to go beyond just having to reconcile a new version of reality with a presupposed other reality. It is almost as if a Sasquatch sighting brings the ancient instincts and the modern superego into direct confrontation to a degree that modern humans are rarely ever asked to endure. That this would leave a body deeply unsettled is not much of a leap in logic, I don’t think.

  23. William responds:

    One of the things I find convincing along with the breasts, muscle movement, arm length bulk of the thing and corresponding tracks, is the apparent thinness of the hair along the side of the creature which would seem to naturally correspond with rubbing that would occur along with movement of the arms and body.

    Who would think of that in a costume?

  24. sasquatch responds:

    Whatever Ploughboy, all I know is that it looks, feels and moves like a real creature-NOT a phony disguise over a human actor.
    THE ONLY THING that has ever bothered me about the subject is that line across the thigh….but I think it is from it’s thumb creasing the fur/hair right there as it’s arms swing in the walk cycle…
    One thing (among many) that always strikes me is the efficiency of movement…nothing is going on that isn’t productive-this is the way animals move in the wild-they need to conserve to survive…
    Now-check the neck and face as it looks straight again after looking at Patterson…This is freaky to me-the face is very flat in profile, but the head recedes. How quickly she gets over the spectacle that is filming her and continues on her mission is very interesting to me. Most fakers want to put on a bit of a show usually-check out Ivan Marx’s stuff for example…
    P/G is as real as it gets folks.

  25. corrick responds:

    As is the norm, I don’t have much to add to Matt’s thoughful post. And like him I wish every bigfoot hunter success.

    However, given the specific topic of the Patterson-Gimlin film, let me point out again as I have in earlier posts, respected mainstream scientists HAVE rigorously examined the Patterson-Gimlin film. I’m refering to “Bigfoot’s Screen Test,” a six page article in the May/June 1999 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, written by two top mainstream anthropology and anatomy scientists. Absolute required P-G film reading.

    Their final conclusion satisfied no one, skeptic or believer alike.
    “Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence.”

    Mainstream science has therefore already exhaustively examined the P-G film and the facts surrounding it and found the P-G film to be inconclusive. So let’s please stop all this scientist bashing. Just find better proof.

  26. volmar responds:

    corrick: Find better proof? What we really need are better scientists…

  27. Kopite responds:

    All one has to do is compare the PGF to every bigfoot suit that you’ve ever seen, whether the suit has been used for a hoax, documentary, commercial or movie and then add every other bipedal ape/apeman suit into the mix, and it becomes pretty obvious that the PGF is nothing like any of them. The PGF is unique to every other bigfoot/bipedal ape/apeman suit ever made.

    Patty is the real deal.

    End of argument.

  28. Alamo responds:

    Hey there Sasquatch,

    I think that “line” you’re talking about (if you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about) is an impact wave in the flesh. Use the Patty loop at the top of the page, you can see the line start at the bottom of the quad and move upwards… check out Sumo, you’ll see a lot of this kind of thing (the impact causes a ripple in the flesh away from point of impact). Problem with the “line” is that it shows up real well in stills as an unnatural looking bulge, but it’s not obvious what it is until you can look at a loop like that and notice that it travels upwards.

  29. corrick responds:

    Always appreciate factually driven replies.

    Here are three things for anyone who thinks the P-G film is real to consider.

    1. If you haven’t read “Bigfoot’s Screen Test,” the six page article in the May/June 1999 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, written by two top mainstream anthropology and anatomy scientists you have no idea how thoroughly this film has already been examined.

    2. Much has been made about “Patty” being a female as if that somehow gives the film more credibility. Except in 1967, all the reported sightings and huge footprints reported clearly indicated that an adult male was between 7′ and 8′ tall. Given that all credible examinations of the P-G film put it’s estimated height at between 6’2 and 6’8″ tall, in 1067, if you planned to film a believable bigfoot hoax, what choice did you have than an alleged adult female?

    3. But most important is that 99.9% of you haven’t actually seen every version of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Obviously, you’ve seen the one always shown in every movie, TV show or every website, perhaps you’ve even seen it hundreds and hundreds of times. And that’s because its the the one synched to a camera speed of 18 frames per second that shows a bigfoot walking at it’s most “unhumanlike.” But there are two other versions and they are never shown.
    Patterson’s camera could film at three different speeds: 16, 18 or 24 frames per second. Patterson himself stated he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but couldn’t recall the camera’s setting. The speed of the film is important because when the film is played back at different settings the creature appears to move slower and more deliberately or faster and more light-footed. either of which make it appear more human like than at the 18 fps speed. So understand, the only speed virtually all of you have ever seen of the P-G footage and is the one that makes a bigfoot look most believable.

    Food for thought.

  30. DWA responds:

    corrick:

    Sorry, but gotta go with volmar on this one. Scientists are society’s probe into the unknown. On this topic, they ain’t earning their keep.

    Keeping an open mind, but not coming down one way or the other until evidence is in: one thing. Sneering and scoffing – and that is what they’re doing, in black and white – in the face of copious evidence that they are wrong, that they refuse to deal with at all? Treating this as a taboo topic…since when was science about taboo? Nope, bashing has to happen, and much of it. When (the evidence says that “when” is the appropriate word) this animal is confirmed, science – rather, scientists who aren’t true to science – will not be thought to have failed us utterly.

    THEY WILL BE SHOWN to have failed us utterly.

    I read “Bigfoot’s Screen Test.” It talks past the film, and that ‘conclusion’ is no conclusion. Krantz and Meldrum – to name only two – did actual analysis, based on what is clearly visible on the film. They show the animal in the film, and the sign it left at the scene, to be consistent with much other evidence from across the continent. Can’t help it if people don’t like their conclusion.

    Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz: scientists. Practicing science.

    Scoffers? People who say “I give it a 5% chance, max” when there is NOTHING on which to base that number? People who say “where are the fossils?” when we constantly hear paleontologists talking about how many fossils we still have yet to find? People who won’t even allow the topic to be brought up? People WITH NO RELEVANT ACADEMIC TRAINING who yell for Meldrum’s tenure on a stick?

    Scientists. Failing science.

    Pure and simple.

  31. Ed W. responds:

    Groupthink at it’s worst. I didn’t mean blurry by 1960′s 8mm standards. I meant too blurry to provide definitive proof of anything. I keep reading how this film hasn’t been debunked in fifty plus years, it also hasn’t be proven to be authentic in fifty plus years, and the believers seem to be putting a lot more effort into making their case than the skeptics are. And for goodness sake please quit quoting Meldrum as your proof that this film is the real deal. Believe it or not, he’s not the only Professor of Anthropology on the planet. While the believers tend to discount the scientific community as a whole, they seem hold the opinions of Meldrum and Krantz as sacrosanct.

  32. Ed W. responds:

    The question of Bigfoot was resolved in the sixties, yet here we are.

  33. zpf responds:

    “This may be the most startling motion picture that you will ever see.”–Peter Graves, in the intro to the 1976 film, “The Mysterious Monsters.”

    I remember the ads for the film running on t.v. that summer, and I remember the fascination of seeing it in the theater as a kid.

    I remember having the sense at the time that science would find some sort of resolution to the film, or the mystery of the creature, in the upcoming years, lol.

    It amazes me the P/G film has survived as such a part of our collective consciousness and as such a unique cultural artifact.

  34. cryptokellie responds:

    I first saw the Patterson/Gimlin film back in 1967 when being shown on a late night talk show. Something upset me about the film then and it still upsets me today 45 years later. Call it an instinctive (unscientific yet powerful) feeling that this figure was
    something I had not seen before. I still get that feeling when viewing the film now.
    Although I’m probably preaching to the chior …I urge those that haven’t, to view the
    NASI Report on the film and the enhancements made by MK Davis – all available on Youtube. I would also point out that, if the figure is person in a costume, this costume was constructed in or before 1967. I suggest that the the film “2001 – a Space Odessy” segment “Dawn of Man” represents the state of the art in costuming at that time, surely sparing no costs to achieve it. There is no comparison between the two. The figures in the Kubrick film are clearly actors in costumes. Although they are miming ape movements and gestures, they are completely recognizable as humans…in costumes. At no point did I feel that these figures are beings that I have not seen before. Their movements and locomotion is always that of actors wearing elaborate costumes. Forgive me for saying costumes with “Bad Hair” days. The figure in the Patterson film has very natural hair and tract patterns which are examined in the NASI report. I have to question if Patterson, a live by the seat of his pants rodeo cowboy was capable of constructing this costume when state of the art film technicians, provided with time and budget could not.
    The MK Davis enhancements show many details unclear in the casual viewing of the film and I mean the entire film, not only the famous segments. One very telling example is the consistent appearance of the gluteal muscles and the cheek definition of, if you’ll excuse me…the butt crack. Nowhere to be found in any gorilla suit of the time – “2001 A Space Odessy” costumes included.
    So we are left with the two obvious outcomes. One – this film shows a human wearing a costume. A costume unable to have been created in 1967 or Two – this film show an unknown human-like primate. Common sense tells me that after 45 years no further and definitive edvidence has been shown to prove this creature’s existence but, the phenomenon that is gravity, known to science from the 1600s onward and it’s effects easily demonstrated, is as yet poorly understood and even less explained as a reality even today, although it is a reality. Every time I look at the Patterson/Gimlin film, I get that funny feeling in my gut and my common sense asks me – “What the hell is that”. I’ve never seen anything like that – before or since.

  35. DWA responds:

    Ed W. :

    Groupthink at its worst.

    (Why do you come here again?)

    What you’re saying is what everyone regurgitates who hasn’t been exposed to the evidence and is of cynical bent. (Those who haven’t been exposed and are of credulous bent are another story. But true believers are true believers, cynical or not.)

    In 45 years I can tell you this:

    No one who demostrates my degree, or more, of exposure to the evidence fails to think, at least, what I think:

    The Patterson-Gimlin film is quite likely authentic, and even were it not, the animal is quite likely real. The evidence compels scientific attention. And P/G is such an insignificant fragment of the evidence that, to anyone paying scholarly attention, its existence doesn’t even matter. (Some proponents would rather it went away.)

    I’ll take scientists with relevant background who agree with me over folks who aren’t paying attention, every time.

    Anyone not exposed to the evidence usually displays at least four markers of this condition in the first 30 seconds of a reply.

    Congratulations.

    No film can provide definitive proof of anything. That’s why biologists generally insist on a specimen. Once again, a scoftic displays a misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and proof, which amounts to:

    Society accepts proof.

    That’s it.

  36. DWA responds:

    And as to this:

    “And for goodness sake please quit quoting Meldrum as your proof that this film is the real deal. Believe it or not, he’s not the only Professor of Anthropology on the planet. While the believers tend to discount the scientific community as a whole, they seem hold the opinions of Meldrum and Krantz as sacrosanct.”

    Once again, a scoftic displays a misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and proof, which amounts to:

    Society accepts proof.

    That’s it.

    Meldrum – as Krantz, to name only two – has analyzed the film, actually using his scientific training. Most of the rest of his colleagues are far less acquainted with the evidence than I am, much less Meldrum. When you show ignorance on a topic, I care not a whit about your degree; I just tell you to get with the program and ignore you henceforth.

    The scientific community isn’t even on this bus yet. Until then, they not only need to be ignored, they need to be razzed until they get it. Meldrum has to worry about his reputation and his tenure. Me? I’m free to razz and I’m going to.

    The only dog I have in this hunt?

    Scientists doing what they’re paid to do.

    Meldrum is.

  37. DWA responds:

    Ed W:

    Because I enjoy piling on in the interest of truth, here are your four markers.

    1. I didn’t mean blurry by 1960′s 8mm standards. I meant
    too blurry to provide definitive proof of anything.

    First marker: no one piece of evidence can be considered proof, short of a specimen on which science has passed judgment: here’s a new species. P/G is compelling evidence, maybe the most compelling (even though unnecessary) single piece. (If you don’t understand the previous sentence: that’s another marker.) But it ain’t proof.

    2. I keep reading how this film hasn’t been debunked in fifty plus years, it also hasn’t be proven to be authentic in fifty plus years,

    Second marker. When a piece of evidence has not been debunked in fifty years, according to the rules of science, which I didn’t make, IT STANDS UNCHALLENGED. Simple reason: one needs to know what it is. As long as one doesn’t, the question remains unanswered. (For the rest, see 1. above.)

    3. [A]nd the believers seem to be putting a lot more
    effort into making their case than the skeptics are.

    Big-time third marker. The skeptics are putting no effort into their case. That is, they are ignorant of the evidence. They have, precisely, zero case. EVERY ENTRANT IN A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION MUST HAVE A CASE, OR SHUT UP.

    4.And for goodness sake
    please quit quoting Meldrum as your proof that this film is the real deal.
    Believe it or not, he’s not the only Professor of Anthropology on the planet.
    While the believers tend to discount the scientific community as a whole, they
    seem hold the opinions of Meldrum and Krantz as sacrosanct.

    Blew this one up in my last post. Biggest marker of all: the scientific community is ignorant on this topic…so they are right!

    Your reply will doubtless display more markers. I’d just display more interest, were I you. I never spend time on anything I’m as uninterested in as you appear to be here.

  38. Kopite responds:

    corrick,

    It’s been more or less ruled out that the PGF was filmed at 24fps.

    Patterson recalled that he noticed the setting was on “18fps” after the filming. There is no 18fps setting on the Kodak K-100 and it was likely a smudged reading of 16fps. Grover Krantz, years later, actually got hold of a Kodak K-100 camera and it was tested that while on a 16fps setting the camera actually ran at a 19fps speed.

    All tests done trying to establish the film speed seem to rule out 24fps. The first of these tests was done by Igor Bourtsev who noticed that if the speed was 24fps then Patterson was running faster than an Olympic sprinter.

  39. DWA responds:

    I’d say that the film speed discussion is moot. We’ll never know.

    The difference maker is the image and HOW it moves. Just as with the evidence it left, that image and that movement squares with what thousands say they’ve seen.

  40. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Corrick–the speed of the creature’s lumbering motion is just one of several compelling features about this footage, so the camera speed question is a bit of a red herring. I come back to the same point others here do as well–namely, the general appearance. My question to you and Ed W would be this: if this is a man in a suit, why can’t anyone come up with a costume that replicates it? One would think that if someone without a massive budget could come up with something this realistic back in the 60s, surely some well-heeled or well-connected skeptical group (or media investigative team) could come close to matching it these days, yet none have–not even close. The rippling of the muscles was the clincher for me; anyone with a knowledge of anatomy immediately recognizes how hard–perhaps even impossible–that is to capture with a costume, even these days, since you can actually see the movement of the skin beneath the hair.

    And Corrick, your rationale regarding the choice of a female creature for the hoax strikes me as implausible in the extreme. Do you honestly believe the hoaxers expected their footage to be studied closely by scientists, anatomists and degreed anthropologists for years to come?

  41. Ploughboy responds:

    I got to tell ya, I’m continuously mystified by the effort a lot of folks expend on de-linking evidence on this subject.

    They will ask, in response to the particular kind of evidence being discussed: So you’ve just got a film of a Sasquatch? So you’ve just got (thousands of) eyewitness encounter reports? So you’ve just got tracks? So you’ve just got unidentified hair samples? So you’ve just got sound recordings?

    No, what the truly informed have is quite possibly the largest compendium of cryptozoological data on a single unclassified mammal in existence. If the P/G film had no other corroborating evidence, it would have passed into obscurity a long time ago.

    If you’ve never taken the time to read all of the eyewitness accounts that are posted almost daily on the BFRO site, you’re talking out of your posterior on this subject. Read those, and then come and give me your explanation. It will take you days, but I’ll wait. Let me know.

  42. DWA responds:

    Because scoffing needs to be drowned out by common sense, let me reiterate what you can read, right up there:

    NO ONE KNOWS WHAT CAUSED THAT IMAGE.

    It can only be one of two things given what we know about technology of the time:

    1. A human in a suit.
    2. An unlisted animal in its birthday suit.

    NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE EXISTS OF 1. IN 45 YEARS.

    Even Bigfoot’s Screen Testers admit that. And they, what, consider case closed? That’s about as scientific as Pyramid Power.

    The scientists who know say:

    What is that?

    The answer is up to science. The proponents have done their job.

  43. Ploughboy responds:

    Sasquatch….on that crease/line on the upper thigh. To my eye, it appears and then vanishes with each swing, appearing only afterward the forward swing. Very interesting and consistent biomechanical process going on there, consistent with the hand brushing the hair only on the forward swing. Or, the hand may be brushing on both the forward and backward swings, but the camera/lighting angle only reveals the contrasting change of the “grain” of the hair after the forward swing. Whatever is going on, it looks like a dynamic process and not an artifact of a suit or prop to me. Think about your own gait too. I think all humans have a tendency to “pull” their arms backwards with flexed muscles, but let them “swing” back to the forward position. If Patty’s locomotion is consistent with that tendency (and the eyewitness accounts do document Sasquatch pulling themselves from tree to tree) the laxness of her arm on the return swing would allow it to brush her thigh.

    Obviously, if true, no animal should under normal conditions have that kind of biomechanical defect built into its gait. Evolution would not favor an extremity that is any way impeded by the other. What this raises for me is the possibility that Patty may have exhibited a stimulation of arrector pili muscles, and her hair was standing up. Under the attending circumstances of the filming, quite understandable.

  44. Alamo responds:

    @ Ed W./ Scoftics, et al.

    It doesn’t really help to use unscientific, faulty logic (“everyone knows this was debunked by scientists back in the 60′s”) to claim that it’s been scientifically proven that the P/G film is a hoax… though it IS good for a little chuckle for those of us that can appreciate the irony. The problem with a tenured scientist is that they could fall asleep in the woods and wake up to Bigfoot peeing on them and it STILL wouldn’t be enough… their sighting: “anecdotal and inconclusive”, footprints found at the scene: “inconclusive”, the pee itself: “similar to human/ primate, but inconclusive”. This is the fault in the paradigm of mainstream tenured scientists: there is little room to explore things on the fringes that have significant anecdotal and incidental, but no direct evidence (i.e. a body).

    @corrick

    I can appreciate your appreciation for a fact based discussion… but as far as the opinions of some so called scientists (whose adherence to dogma bears more resemblance to religious fervor than any scientific mindset that I’ve ever seen)… I feel that they are “not much relevant”, so in the immortal words of the Dalai Lama: “forget” them… (tongue firmly in cheek) I have a BS in Cryptozoology that I printed out using my Laserjet, it’s got nice curly cue letters and I’ve got it in a fancy frame on my wall. $2 will get you one just like it… but seriously… my point is that you’re “technically” as qualified as anyone here. Use your eyes, what do they tell you? Use your brain, what does it tell you? How about your gut? Do you still think it’s fake? Why? Be specific… and use a scientific type framework… by this I mean that going totally out of this world, i.e. “Bigfoots arrived on flying saucers with little green men” doesn’t allow us a framework for discussion. We have to start with a “scientific type” framework since this gives us a common ground to even have a discussion. If one person is talking about the evolution of the foot in a large, bipedal hominid and another is talking about how aliens engineered them that way, there are few constructive results which can be had from that interaction.

    You’ve cited 3 arguments:

    #1. Anyone can cut and paste a link to someone else’s research, but let’s explore their arguments a bit:

    In the essay it says, “… two claims seriously undermine that the PG film is a hoax”, then it goes on to talk at length about dimensions and gait as if these are the only things which could possibly authenticate the film. IMO – it’s more of a “straw man”, as they themselves admit that estimates of dimensions and gait are inconclusive. The problem with this assertion is that any suit advanced enough to incorporate the clearly visible elasticity and “jelly-like” movement of the muscles and flesh under the skin could certainly use prostheses to skew the dimensions (have the actor’s eyes looking out through the suit’s “mouth” with a prosthetic head attached to the top that turns as he turns his head, the suit’s shoulders would be in line with the actors eyes with the head adding the necessary extra height to an already tall actor, arm extensions would be used to increase forearm length). The point is, I can “Da Vinci” the plans for this suit all I want… but like Da Vinci’s sketches during his time, the technologies to make them a reality are not extant (much less almost 50 years ago). There have been numerous contemporary attempts to duplicate the P/G film with suits/ actors… I’ve seen probably half a dozen in recent memory, some with high-powered talent behind both duplicating the mechanics and creating the suit… but none came even close to displaying what for me is the most compelling element: the aforementioned “clearly visible elasticity and ‘jelly-like’ movement of the muscles and flesh under the skin”. The thing with the P/G film is that the “bricks” stack up… each one supports the other… unlike some pieces which contain 2 pieces of contradictory information for every 3 pieces that are consistent.

    #2. “What choice did you have…?” is more like a rhetorical question and isn’t really a valid argument for or against the authenticity of the film.

    #3. The declared film speed could be off and you say that looking at these other versions might change our mind as to the authenticity… OK, fair enough. Where are the links to this footage, what specific elements did you observe that would support this conclusion? Hardly a “fact based” argument that you are making…

  45. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy: so, um, forceful, man!

    But I get it, been there, long long ago.

    There could be a whisperingly conceivable verloren hoop – you can bet it, even though it’s an insane bet – that all this (and I do mean ALL THIS) interlocking, checking out, awesomely consistent evidence amounts to a crock.

    So, the skeptics say: IT MUST BE ONE!?!?!?!?

    Don’t forget texasbigfoot.com, Plough. And don’t forget the John Green database. John Bindernagel pretty much bases his research on what’s in the latter. I’d read virtually nothing on it. And when I read his books, the accounts were compelling.

    Why?

    They squared with what I’d independently read, in independent databases, all the information compiled, not by Bobo Fay, but by independent people independently recording the experiences of an astonished public.

    If you know what evidence looks like, there is only one response.

    Holy cow. An eight-foot ape at large in the US.

    And we are actually missing it.

  46. Ed W. responds:

    To DWA. I said the picture is too blurry to provide definitive proof either way and I’m a scoftic (who the heck came up with that one?). Somebody else says “Patty is the real deal. End of argument!” and you’re apparently fine with it. Once again, the double standard that runs rampant in the Bigfoot community comes to the surface.
    I’ve been reading these books since I was a kid like most of the people here. I used to be of the opinion that there was a decent possibility that these things were real. I’m pretty sure that if I took the same aptitude tests that I took back then, my old scores would be higher than my new ones, so I’m not questioning anybodies intelligence. What I am questioning is why so many people in the bigfoot community jump to the conclusion that anybody who doesn’t agree with them hasn’t looked at the evidence. Pile on all you want.

  47. corrick responds:

    Thank you Ed W. for your posts.

    This topic/thread is about the P-G film and nothing else so I’m only
    going to respond about rational questions concerning my PG film posts.

    Kopite
    “It’s been more or less ruled out that the PGF was filmed at 24fps.” Maybe by Krantz and Igor Bourtsev. Daegling and Schmitt studied all three speeds as did John Napier (just to throw out a big science name) who disagreed with Krantz’s assesement, and contended the film was shot at 24 frames per second. And please Google Igor Bourtsev. Caveat emptor.

    chewbaccalacca
    I think you may have misunderstood my rationale for an adult female in 1967. IF it was in fact a hoax, there just wouldn’t be any 7′ to 8′ human candidates for an adult male. So your candidate pool of 6’2″-6’8″ candidates then available pretty much restricted you to an adult female. And again, if it was a hoax, from what I’ve ever read about hoaxsters, past and present, their intentions are for a quick payback.

    Alamo
    A very entertaining reply and your question #3 is spot on. Have no idea where one might find all three fps speeds shown. I’ve never seen them for myself, but the different versions are cited by countless of scientists and amateurs alike who have examined the film. Where you might fing them on the internet, I have no clue.

    People, understand, the P-G film is inconclusive. If there is ever to be real evidence for a Bigfoot the P-G film isn’t it. Maybe Matt and Booboo? ;)

  48. DWA responds:

    Hey Alamo:

    (See, this is what I’m gonna do from now on. For every post ignoring the evidence, I’m gonna make – or be part of – 50 saying: SCIENCE DOESN’T ALLOW YOU TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.)

    Great points, and you are making the same big point I’d like to make about “Bigfoot’s Screen Test”: it’s dragging 1,000 tiny little trees in the way so we can’t see the forest.

    All the technical mumbojumbo in that essay basically fails to make the point that Daegling NEEDS TO MAKE for that essay to mean a damn thing, basically:

    HOW DID THEY DO THE HOAX?

    (He says that’s Meldrum’s job, badly misunderstanding his. Meldrum is smart enough to know it’s a nonstarter.)

    At any speed, I have never, ever seen a person walk like that. (Many bigfoot witnesses have, just like that.) In the whole history of BigfootVid, I have never, ever seen one walk like that, other than this one. (Why? Clue. THEY’RE PEOPLE IN SUITS, WALKING LIKE PEOPLE.)

    So here’s what’s going on:

    One of history’s greatest geniuses – oh he/she/they/it definitely is – puts one of history’s better (and stronger) actors in a one of a kind suit, walking a one of a kind walk THAT IS SO SUBTLE NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF IMITATORS EVEN UNDERSTANDS IT – and leaves footprints at the scene on which maybe the best and most uniquely qualified researcher working on this question PUBLISHES A REFEREED PAPER linking it to hundreds of trackways elsewhere, and referring it as an “ichnotaxon,” something that, well, ….

    …ARE. YOU. KIDDING.

    ME!?!?!?!??!?!!?

    THIS IS THE SCOFTIC THESIS?

    On what, praytell, evidence?

    Gotta have that, or no thesis.

    (If you don’t think top-level genius was at work if this is a hoax, you are in badly over your head. Forty-five years is why.)

    (And he gets a buncha guys wearing water bags to Walk Like A Bigfoot. For like ten yards. What I meant by talking past the film. Although there are many other ways to show that no one, ever, has done a better job of obfuscation through clarification.)

    Unchallenged. Forty-five years.

    If I had to bet everything I owned, the bet is:

    There’s the sasquatch.

    No scientist who is paying attention would contest it.

    Because:

    WHY IN THE HELL would you bet EVERYTHING on the thesis SUPPORTED BY…

    NO EVIDENCE?

    (WHEN I AM TRYING TO DENT STEEL, I GO ALL-CAPS.)

    Da Vinci’s helicopter? Never got off the ground. Neither would this, in 1967, and probably now. GREAT way of making that point, Alamo.

    (And, were that possible, an even better point about what the mainstream generally does, which is: See those lines? INSIDE THE LINES, PEOPLE.)

  49. DWA responds:

    And because piling on is my favorite thing to do here:

    Anyone who considers the sasquatch inconceivable only needs to look at this thread to see why it’s hiding.

    WE’RE HIDING IT.

    Considering this film prima facie evidence of an unlisted animal, probably a paradigm-busting primate, is just routine stuff. It’s what scientists do, how scientists think, when their heads are on straight.

    So where are their heads?

    (Get your mind out of the gutter, young man!)

    History’s biggest deception is an eight-foot bipedal ape, a number of possible progenitors of which are right there in the fossil record. (Coelacanth, anyone?)

    There could be eight billion of them, and they wouldn’t have to worry about discovery with that attitude.

    Maybe the only attribute that is uniquely human:

    If we don’t want to see it…

    …it’s invisible.

  50. Ed W. responds:

    Alamo- When you said “It doesn’t really help to use unscientific, faulty logic (“everyone knows this was debunked by scientists back in the 60’s”)” I honestly didn’t know what you were talking about. I’m prtty sure that I know now. You took my saying that “The question of Bigfoot was resolved in the sixties, yet here we are.” as meaning it was debunked in the sixties. I never said debunked, I said resolved, and I was trying to point out to the posters who are saying things like “Patty is the real deal, end of story” that if this film really was the end of the story, this website wouldn’t exist.

  51. skimmer responds:

    I guess one of my concerns is also how the film itself is being physically treated. How many times in history has an important cultural artifact been lost to history through mishandling? Don’t get me wrong, I am not for taking the film from the owner to insure its preservation–as far as I am concerned it is not up to anyone but the owner as to what happens to it, but it would be ashamed if it were to degrade when other precautions could have been taken. That said–what is the cash value of the Patterson Gimlin film?

    So on the 45th anniversary of the Patterson Gimlin film, how about a little history of the film itself from those who may know–How is it being taken care of? I’ve read that the existing film is not a first generation copy but a second generation, and that the original was lost years ago. Are there any clues as to where the original might be after 45 years or can we only hope for it to show up on an Antique Roadshow episode?

  52. Novelhawk responds:

    skimmer makes a great point. Add to his point this: Has anyone ever seen the ENTIRE film? I would love to go frame by frame of the entire film start to finish (the encounter was at the end.) So what was on the rest of it. Maybe something else could have been caught and is waiting to be found on the rest of the footage…

    Does anyone know?

    It would be like watching the Zapruder film from it’s start and see if there is ever a silhouette in the window the building.

  53. Ed W. responds:

    Creating an aurhetic looking sasquatch suit is enough to claim a place as one of hisrories greatest geniuses? You realay must enjoy piling it on.

  54. Ed W. responds:

    Sometimes I enjoy piling on myself. Is there anybody here who believes that if proof ever came up that the Patterson film is a fake, that future historians would put Patterson on any of their lists of geniuses from the past because he orchestrated a hoax that went 50, 75 or 100 years without being irrefutably debunked?
    Seriously, try to keep it real.

  55. Alamo responds:

    Ed W.,

    My apologies if I misconstrued your post, the internet makes it difficult to judge just what the author is trying to say. I read it as saying that the issue had been put to rest conclusively back in the 60s.

    Agreed that people making unsupported statements as fact, on either side of the argument, is not constructive. I give allowances for people to have opinions (I think it’s real or fake for the following reasons) but show less tolerance for examples of the classic logical fallacies: ad hominem, red herring (or straw man), begging the question etc… I find it especially amusing when logical fallacies are used by some to assert “scientific” conclusions.

    DWA,

    Totally feeling you about the willful blindness of some. You may have already seen this, but others might find it interesting as well… I think it has a direct bearing on the discussion (the fact that it incorporates a large primate is priceless): The Invisible Gorilla

  56. DWA responds:

    Ed W.

    “You took my saying that “The question of Bigfoot was resolved in the sixties, yet here we are.” as meaning it was debunked in the sixties. I never said debunked, I said resolved,…”

    What really doesn’t help is to use language that means something other than what you think it does.

    Your quote above means: We resolved this in the 60s. Bigfoot isn’t real.

    You do need to get that, and explain yourself if that’s not what you mean.

    If that’s what you mean, you’re wrong.

    This is not a “blurry” film, once again. I’m taking a scientist’s opinion of it over yours, and not Daegling’s, who pretends he can’t see what can easily be seen on it.

    Next thread, people. P/G will stand as a challenge to every generation until the one that confirms the sasquatch. That’s it.

  57. DWA responds:

    Ed W: answers to your questions:

    1. Creating an aurhetic looking sasquatch suit is enough to claim a place as one of hisrories greatest geniuses?

    By far. Einstein might rank ahead of him but not by much.

    2. if proof ever came up that the Patterson film is a fake, that future historians would put Patterson on any of their lists of geniuses from the past because he orchestrated a hoax that went 50, 75 or 100 years without being irrefutably debunked?

    Undoubtedly.

    People do highlight their lack of acquaintance with evidence in the most interesting ways.

  58. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    Did you know (you probably did) that “The Invisible Gorilla” is used, very inappropriately, by bigfoot skeptics to highlight their (lack of) argument?

    Kudos for applying it in just the right way, dude!

    There is being so open-minded that your brains fall out.

    Then, there’s squeezing them so tightly shut you miss what is right there.

    (Daegling.)

  59. zpf responds:

    Do any of you ever come across people who just love this FILM, independent of the debate over the authenticity of the subject? People who love it just for the feeling of intriguing mystery it evokes, and continues to evoke, in ourselves and others, year in, year out? Just for the history of it, how it’s become what it’s become in terms of our collective consciousness and as a cultural artifact? After all, it’s a documentary of reality, regardless of whether it was a man in a suit or an unknown species. Even if it’s just a snapshot of a time and place in history, of a hoax conducted, it’s still pretty fascinating to me, because of the affect it has had.

  60. Alamo responds:

    DWA,

    Right you are, it is a perfect illustration. People get caught up in the stuff they tell themselves (or have been told) is important, to the point of being blind to the obvious. Then it’s disbelief and anger if you have the temerity to point out the great hairy ape that’s right in their face. “Are you high? What gorilla? Don’t bother me, I’m doing something important here…”. They miss the gorilla standing in front of them because they’re too busy doing the all important scientific task of counting, measuring and cataloguing. They would follow those all powerful numbers on their GPS right into the heart of Death Valley… despite everything their eyes, ears and brain was telling them.

    To paraphrase Bruce Lee, “It’s like a finger pointing away to Bigfoot… don’t look at the finger, you’ll miss Bigfoot.”.

    Ed W.,

    I would have to concur with DWA on this one. The level of sophistication of the “suit”, taking into account the clearly visible musculature with life like action, hair distribution and coloration, the anatomical and behavioral consistencies with other great apes… “genius” doesn’t begin to describe it. Anybody remember the Sinbad the Sailor movies from the 70′s and how we ooohed and aaahed over Ray Harryhausen’s claymation effects? If Patterson created this back in 67, he could have had his pick of jobs as a Hollywood effects man and gotten paid big money… he certainly wouldn’t have wasted that considerable talent on hoaxing one Bigfoot film.

  61. Kopite responds:

    corrick wrote:

    Maybe by Krantz and Igor Bourtsev. Daegling and Schmitt studied all three speeds as did John Napier (just to throw out a big science name) who disagreed with Krantz’s assesement, and contended the film was shot at 24 frames per second. And please Google Igor Bourtsev. Caveat emptor.

    Napier never concluded the PGF was filmed at 24fps. Napier actually agreed with his friend Dr D.W. Grieve, who simply said he could not pinpoint what speed the film was shot at and that it remained unknown. And if you want to throw Bourtsev under a bus then please do the same with Napier. After all, Dr John Napier insisted a rock was a Yeti and went to his grave claiming a rock was a Yeti. Bourtsev’s novel way of fining the approximate film speed actually stacks up. The camera bounces tally up with Patterson’s footsteps as he was running forwards. If the film was shot at 24fps then Patterson was taking quicker steps than an Olympic sprinter…..on an uneven sandbar to boot. There is no way around this.

    Daegling and Schmitt have never actually demonstrated that the PGF was shot at 24fps. It is just their guesswork. They have provided no bona fide data proving their assertions.

    Cheers.

  62. Kopite responds:

    Skimmer/Novelhawk,

    I heard that apparently there is a feeling that the original film was borrowed out to American National Enterprises, Patterson soon died, ANE went into liquidation, their assets were seized and the film was never returned and could still be in some vault somewhere. I don’t know how true that story is.

    As to what else is on the film, well nothing. The first generation copy can still us all we need to know. Splices and edits would be detectable on a first generation copy, with today’s high tech digital equipment. Bill Munns has studied the first generation copy extensively and has detected zero signs of any edits and splices. Munns has even detected camera stop and start points when Patterson’s finger came off the camera button while traversing the creek and sandbar etc. All the evidence shows that the film did run out when Patterson said so. The camera in question only took circa 2 minute rolls of film or so. The first half of the footage shows scenic shots. The second half shows the Patty encounter, then it runs out……exactly as a short reel of film for that particular camera would do.

  63. Ed W. responds:

    To DWA-”Your quote above means: We resolved this in the 60s. Bigfoot isn’t real.” No DWA, it doesn’t. If I had said “We resolved this in the sixties, the Patterson film is fake.” It would have. That’s not what I said, and it’s not what I meant.

    Frankly I think that you’re too emotionally invested in this topic to take other people’s words at face value, so I’ll try to explain it to once again (by the way Alamo, no apologies are needed for misunderstanding what I was trying to say, like I said in my earlier post, it took me while to figure out where you were coming from on your 7:56 pm post from the 22nd),when I said I said “The question of Bigfoot was resolved in the sixties, yet here we are.” I was directing my comment for the people who are saying “The Patterson film is real, end of story” as far as I know, nobody on this particular thread, including myself ever said “The Patterson film is fake, end of story!”. If the Patterson film is were fake, it wouldn’t prove there is no such thing as bigfoot anymore than the costume in a freezer did. If it were definitely real, it would prove that bigfoot is real, and if bigfoot has already been proven to be a real creature, most sites like this wouldn’t even exist which is why I said “yet here we are”.

    As far as your comments regarding Einstein vs. Patterson, as they say, we’re all entitled to our opinions, but I don’t hear anybody comparing Dr. Wilson to Einstein because it took over fifty years for his photo to be conclusively was debunked, and I doubt that I ever will.

  64. DWA responds:

    Ed W.:

    This is not about emotions, as I keep pointing out here. This is about the cold, hard, anthracite glitter of heartless evidence. I just know what the evidence says.

    I debunked The Nessie Photo first time I saw it. I was 6 or 9 years old, somewhere in there, I think. “That looks like a toy brontosaurus in a bathtub!” Nope, no genius there.

    Read Alamo. He says why. This is true, because it points up the absurdity of PRESUMING that it’s a fake. Given what would have been required to do it – and if one doesn’t get that, one is uninformed – why would one think ANYONE could do this? Or would, if they could, do just this and nothing else? Defies logic. One is much better at least admitting to the discussion how we could be missing an animal like this, in our midst…and surprise! it becomes really logical, when one uses common sense. WE SIMPLY WON’T BELIEVE IT, even when it’s right there.

    Alamo, great points.

  65. Ed W. responds:

    I think that our differences of opinion on this matter are all pretty much based on what we ourselves see in this film. Some of us see undeniable muscle mass movement, some of us see a zipper (although that group isn’t represented in here as far as I can tell), and some of see a film that doesn’t have high enough resolution to conclusively prove either of the other two groups claims. As I’ve said several times before (you might not be able to find these posts because I had to change my name from Fred123 due to a combination of hard drive failures and problems with the captcha (?) that was needed to retrieve the password for that username). I actually used to try demonstrating one of the things that I once read about the gait by trying to demonstrate that it was nearly impossible to walk in one direction with the upper torso facing another direction like Patty does (until I actually did it, much to my surprise).
    What I object to is that people who seem to take offense at how they are perceived, are so free in disparaging anybody who doesn’t agree with them (we need better scientists etc…). I also reject the notion that anybody who hasn’t reached the same conclusion that they have, has never looked at the evidence.
    DWI asked me “What are you doing here?”. I don’t think that Loren would ask ne that question, and I’m certain this he’d never ask me “Why are you buying my books?”.
    I see similarities here to Plymouth colony, where people who fled religious intolerance set up a society that was at least as intolerant as the one they had fled from.
    Believe it or not, it’s possible for people to look at the same evidence, and reach different conclusion. Ask any trial lawyer,

  66. Ploughboy responds:

    ZPF…yes, most definitely. Strictly as cultural artifact, it ranks up there with a Warhol poster of Marilyn or the photo of the raising of the flag on Mt. Suribachi. Respect must be paid, no matter your view on what it actually depicts.

    But…each and every time I look at it, no matter if I just viewed it the day before, it induces in me the same feelings of wonder and joy. This is: There are still things out there not contemplated in our philosophy.

    We should put her on the face of a 3 dollar bill….to be know forever as a “Patty.”

  67. corrick responds:

    Wow. Have a real life, leave for a day or two and then come back to this.

    I don’t have the next few months free to comment on everything, so I’ll
    just touch on a couple of things and be done.

    Ed W. I appreciate all your posts. They remind me of Sagan’s “one candle in the darkness” analogy for some reason ;)

    OK. Again and again the sophistication of the “suit” and it’s “unnatural” gait are brought up as why we should accept the creature depicted in the P-G film as an unknown animal. May I point out that as humans we “see” all images of anything pre-filtered by our own conscious and to a greater extent our own personal subliminal biases. So understand everyone will always “see” the P-G film itself in a different way. Which is why all eye-witness testimony, stories or anecdotes are unacceptable as scientific proof. They are all untestable.

    The P-G film IS testable. And yes, the film is not a blobsquatch or “blurry,” but it was also taken from a distance and certainly not crystal clear. And the amount of pixel information on the film doesn’t allow for any enlargements or “enhancements” to offer any accurate additional information. Additionally, nothing physically near the object filmed was measured so all conjectures about the exact measurements of the object are simply that, conjecture no matter how plausible they sound.
    And lets not forget that the size of the footprints measured right after the sighting don’t seem to match the purported size of the object. Or…etc.

    In conclusion The P-G film is inconclusive scientific evidences, then, now and in the future. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real, only that it is not acceptable as scientific proof.

    Now a little meat on the barbie for DWA

    Ironic isn’t it? You never stop bashing all scientists except the only two who agree with you, Krantz and Meldrum. Apparently all others are clowns.

    You never stop screaming about all this evidence. We know the P-G film is inconclusive and that eyewitness testimony and stories don’t constitute any proof about anything (like UFO’s and ghosts), so what is it? Inquiring minds would like to know. And be specific!

    DWA: “Unchallenged. Forty-five years.”
    Me: “Unproven. Forty-five years.”

    Ed W. “if proof ever came up that the Patterson film is a fake, that future historians would put Patterson on any of their lists of geniuses from the past because he orchestrated a hoax that went 50, 75 or 100 years without being irrefutably debunked?”
    DWA: “Undoubtedly.”
    Me: “No you wouldn’t, DWA. You’d come crawling out of your grave and start a conspiracy theory!”

  68. Alamo responds:

    Hey everybody,

    I’d like to close a loophole here, if I may. My own knowledge in this matter could use some strengthening, perhaps you Cryptomundians can assist in my edification. How do we know if the digital remaster/ enhancements are faithful to the original? Have they been independently verified/ reviewed/ critiqued? I know the most well known is by Munns, an even more well known creature creator. This gives him means, if not necessarily motive… this also puts him in a unique position to spot a fake… or cover up that same fake. A “cover-up” by Munns is not likely though, as I also know others besides him have done similar work applying modern video technology to the film and also seen striking and thought provoking details . What’s the best of what’s out there?

  69. DWA responds:

    This is how I know I am one of the more patient people I know.

    “…all eye-witness testimony, stories or anecdotes are unacceptable as scientific proof. They are all untestable.”

    Not so. They are as testable as any other evidence. They place at least one (more than one but I’m trying to keep it simple for you folk) proposition on the table that can be easily tested: this animal will be found here, if you look. (If you want to read more, Bindernagel’s second book is a good place to start. But far be it from you to do that, am I right?)

    I am wondering how many times I am going to have to say that the skeptics’ only point seems to be a constantly reiterated “that isn’t proof.” If it isn’t tested, IT CAN’T BE PROOF. It can be, and is, compelling evidence. There is an enormous pile of testable evidence which the scientific mainstream resolutely fails to test.

    Which brings me to this:

    “Ironic isn’t it? You never stop bashing all scientists except the only two who agree with you, Krantz and Meldrum. Apparently all others are clowns.”

    I mention them for one reason and one reason only: THEY DEMONSTRABLY ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE.

    Of the others, many are clowns. Daegling is one of the clowns. Alamo and I have amply shown that.

    Many are cowed. Many are simply reticent. But I can ignore all of them until one of them – and none of them have – does one simple thing: ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE, and show me what your reservations are with it, and please not the same old “it isn’t proof” or “Where’s the evidence?” It isn’t proof because NO ONE IS TESTING IT, except pitifully underfunded people, none of them professionally, and none of them for what could charitably be called “part time.” Krantz and Meldrum will likely one day – should the mainstream ever get off its duff and pay attention – be recognized as geniuses, mainly because of that previous sentence. They aren’t getting a dime of daily bread off this.

    Really, my challenge stands from the first day I appeared here: one scientific demurrer that I can’t shoot to pieces without even taking the time to warm up my fingers. No takers yet.

    “You never stop screaming about all this evidence. We know the P-G film is inconclusive and that eyewitness testimony and stories don’t constitute any proof about anything (like UFO’s and ghosts), so what is it? Inquiring minds would like to know. And be specific!”

    No. YOU DO. I already have. And I already know what you’ll say to anything I post:

    “That isn’t proof.” Tell me something I don’t know. That’s the mainstream’s fault. We delegate to them the responsibility for proof. To paraphrase Lincoln: one cannot escape tomorrow’s responsibility by evading it today. When the sasquatch is confirmed, it will be the mainstream that will be shown to have failed. There won’t be any disagreement on this; it’ll be obvious.

    “DWA: “Unchallenged. Forty-five years.”
    Me: “Unproven. Forty-five years.”

    I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS ONE, ON THIS THREAD!

    (WHEN I AM TRYING TO DENT STEEL, I USE ALL CAPS.)

    Unchallenged in forty-five years means THE SEARCH HAS NOT STARTED YET! So when will it? Can’t get proof until it does. The proponents – most of them not even scientists – are not responsible for that. THE MAINSTREAM IS.

    Conspiracy theory is for scoftics. They’re the ones who think one is going on, right?

    Right.

    Do you guys keep track of how many ways you keep saying the same thing?

  70. DWA responds:

    Oh. And one more question, while I have your attention.

    Why do you not want to know anything about this?

    If I were you, I’d join me – I’M A SKEPTIC, but true believers have a problem with that – in asking the scientific mainstream (not me, sillies. THIS IS THEIR JOB!):

    “Why don’t *you* want to know anything about this?”

    What are you defending them for? If you think they need it you have branded them as ….”clowns” I believe was your word.

  71. DWA responds:

    And to condense a point Ploughboy and I have made a number of times here, catch:

    ————————————————
    Both of Bindernagel’s books, and Meldrum’s, and J.Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch,” and Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper, and every report on both bfro.net and texasbigfoot.com, at a minimum, are Sasquatch 001. You should read some Krantz, too. And John Green’s database (although many reports from that are written up by Bindernagel). Anyone who thinks this is too much, well, shouldn’t be opining here. I mean, they can; it’s just an uninformed opinion. At least I only offer opinions on things I know something about. Isn’t that reasonable? I think so.
    ————————————————

    And yes I have posted this on Cryptomundo before, more than once. Stop the “where’s the evidence?” I am smarter than most, no doubt, but this didn’t take long to find, and I just saved you all the work but the reading.

    To say you don’t have time to read this, and continue to ask us “where’s the evidence?” ….I believe “clown” was your word.

    Come on people. At least make me work a little. Coming to class read up would be good.

  72. skimmer responds:

    Thanks Kopite.

    I remember a special where Munns obtained permission to copy the film from the Patterson family so that is probably who is taking care of it now. I wonder what measures they are using to preserve it?

  73. Kopite responds:

    corrick wrote:

    “”And lets not forget that the size of the footprints measured right after the sighting don’t seem to match the purported size of the object.””

    Who told you that? The purported size of the object is between 6.5ft and 7ft, if it was standing fully upright. Probably nearer to 7ft, without the bent legs or the hunched over back. The casts of the footprints were likely slightly bigger than the actual foot size (that’s what plaster does) and in all probability a sasquatch has a larger foot from it’s height than a human does.

    So again, who says the footprints don’t match the size of the subject?

  74. Alamo responds:

    Very true, eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable… in isolation.

    How about if there were others at the scene that corroborated the same basic set of facts? Getting warmer? How about multiple multi-witness sightings? How about if others in different parts of the country reported similar experiences, again with the same basic set of facts? (huge nonhuman biped) Heating up pretty good I’d say. Different parts of the continent? How about different parts of the world? Thousands of encounters over thousands of years, in parts so isolated there was no way for them to share the story, again with the same exact elements. So much heat that if you haven’t gotten off your butt to take closer look, your pants are likely on fire. Seems most unscientific to NOT investigate.

    Maybe we’re too hard on professional scientists… after all, they have to put bread on the table with their science. We have the luxury of saying any fool thing that decides to come out of our mouth. Imagine if people could use our musings on this site against us professionally. As we have to be PC at work, so do they. That is why there is such great respect and admiration here for those established scientists that risk their reputation and livelihood to explore things deemed taboo by their less imaginative colleagues.

  75. DWA responds:

    Kopite:

    Precisely. The foot-size thing is like everything the scoftics toss up. Not one shred of evidence supports it, but it’s a good snicker that makes one look cool, and the unwashed swallow it whole.

    (Skeptics challenge every assumption, including the naive one that this isn’t real. Swallowing everything you are fed, no evidence backing any of it, is not skeptical. Meldrum’s and Krantz’s skepticism is their leading hallmark. But if you didn’t read them, you wouldn’t know that, would you.)

    Alamo:

    As usual, on point. Except for this:

    “Maybe we’re too hard on professional scientists… after all, they have to put bread on the table with their science.”

    And even there, it’s yes and no.

    (Everything I post here, I’ve posted at least a hundred times. Here goes again.)

    I cannot fault scientists individually for not dropping everything to research the sasquatch. But I can fault them, individually and collectively, for their attitude toward the topic. Scientists should be raising – should have been doing it for sixty years now – a generation of young sasquatch researchers, coaching young students in open minds and highlighting for them – we can’t get this done, we’ve plowed our furrow and need to put bread on our tables, but you can – the greatest unsolved mystery of zoology.

    Some professors have indeed done this. (Read Alley’s foreword.) The vast majority do not. From them: snickering, sneering and plain old uninformed blather. (Clowns, I believe, was the word.)

    Or cowed, protect-my-career silence.

    That’s not science. That’s religion. And not an enlightened one at that.

    I’m-ignorant-and-you’re-wrong is a nonstarter in science.

    That’s why I asked you, Ed W. , why are you here? To sneer?

    We aren’t arguing with you. We are trying to educate you. Because we know far more about this than you do.

    Really?

    Then SHOW US.

  76. Ploughboy responds:

    I of course would pile-on the pile-on here.

    There are many factors contributing to the ability of Sasquatch to stay hidden from those-who-would-not-see, in plain view. Chief of those is probably our disinclination to murder one. (Just an aside to those who openly wish for that: History will not treat you kindly) But, that is the ONLY thing we lack. When I say “we” don’t have that, I mean to say the knowledge is not in our collective experience, documented for easy reference. We are categorically unable to say it has not happened, possibly multiple times, and there is some evidence it has. Pre-history? Bet on it. As I’ve stated before, I view the Sasquatch population as only a remnant one, hunted to the brink of extinction by the deadlier monkey. Like with every other non-game mammal species that inhabits this continent, habituation to humans is ongoing, and the degree would have to depend on proximity and frequency of contact. Oh, and the outcomes of those contacts. So far, Sasquatch has not had any particularly unpleasant encounters, to judge from the eyewitness encounters, as reported. (Read those yet?) It also looks to be getting more at ease with contact as time goes by. You don’t have to look any further than the documentation of black bear encounters in the Eastern U.S. to confirm how quickly a species will overcome generational memory and become astoundingly habituated once the shooting stops (Which it has in large swaths of its original historic range). I would guess though that Sasquatch has a much longer memory, and lots more to overcome, but it seems to be making steady progress.

    Which brings me back to Patty. The behavior exhibited by her in this film (wary, not panicked, quickly and steadily retreating) has been thoroughly documented in HUNDREDS of reports of encounters (Read those yet?)

  77. Ed W. responds:

    To DWA.-You said “I debunked The Nessie Photo first time I saw it. I was 6 or 9 years old, somewhere in there, I think. “That looks like a toy brontosaurus in a bathtub!”

    Is that really all it takes to debunk evidence?

    I’m sure that if the Patterson film is ever debunked there will be more people saying “Even when I was a kid I thought that the thing in that film looked like it was just a guy in monkey suit.” than there will be claiming that Patterson’s genius fell just short of Einstein’s. A lot more.

  78. Kopite responds:

    DWA,

    I’m baffled how any scoftic/skeptic would even claim to know how such and such tall a sasquatch would have such and such size feet. By all accounts their limbs/appendages/other body proportions don’t seem to correlate exactly to humans. Take Patty for example. Her thighs and arms, shoulders and torso are much thicker than a human of the same height.

    I would assume, based on all this, that a sasquatch the same height as a human would have bigger feet in order to support a larger mass.

    Why WOULDN’T a near 7ft sasquatch like Patty have circa 14 inch feet?

  79. DWA responds:

    Kopite:

    Much eyewitness literature consistently describes differences between the proportions of human and sasquatch that tipped the witness off that the witness wasn’t looking at a human. Among them are larger (proportionally) hands and feet.

    Estimates for the height of Patty exceeding seven feet, the prints she left in her wake aren’t unusual in size for one of these, at all. In fact, for the smallest height estimate they aren’t either.

    People have big feet for their size and small feet for their size. But sasquatch? Nooooooooo, not sasquatch.

    One just marvels at what folks will latch on to who don’t have evidence to help them out.

    Ed W:

    What I grasped at my tender age is, frankly, what anyone should grasp looking at that photo. That is: that’s not how a lake would look in that circumstance.

    Same with Patty. That is: That just doesn’t look human.

  80. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Just out of curiosity, a question for you Ed W: do you believe that given–oh, say a $100,000 budget (just to be generous) a team assembled by skeptics could today recreate the creature in the 40-some year old film closely enough that it would pass muster with a panel of objective critics? (I don’t mean the footage itself would pass for the same, simply that the appearance and movements of the creature–done at various camera speeds, just to play it safe–could demonstrably match those of the PG film?)

  81. DWA responds:

    ““Ironic isn’t it? You never stop bashing all scientists except the only two who agree with you, Krantz and Meldrum. Apparently all others are clowns.”

    Yet another way of highlighting lack of acquaintance with the evidence.

    I did mention Alley’s foreword, right? You did read it, right?

    A number of other scientists consider the animal to be real. John Mionczynski is one; Carleton S. Coon (one of the world’s foremost anthropologists) was another. Daris Swindler (one of the world’s foremost anthropologists) was another. (The latter was converted from severe skepticism on the basis of the Skookum Cast – you do know what that is, right? – alone.) A number of scientists – at least a couple of them, Alton Higgins and Matthew Johnson, using their real names – have reported encounters. (One relayed his to me firsthand.) Jimmy Chilcutt – one of the world’s foremost fingerprint examiners, and an expert on primate prints – got into this to debunk Jeff Meldrum. He’s more convinced than Meldrum. Jane Goodall and George Schaller, superstars of mainstream zoology, insist that the evidence is compelling. (See, not all mainstreamers are numnuts.) You use John Napier’s and Igor Bourtsev’s names in vain. Both assert the reality of sasquatch. Bourtsev says this film is of an unknown hominid. Napier didn’t think this film authentic (his analysis BTW sucks, but that’s scientists confronted by the unknown for you); but he’s a classic example of a scientist who didn’t need this film to be convinced by the other evidence. Darren Naish – a freakin’ genius, google him – insists that this film is compelling.

    And I what, go with you? Daegling is in tatters. Here, help yourself, these aren’t the first tire tracks we’ve left on his back:

    http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sas-lms-review4/

    (When I’m not beating on Ben Radford with my homes, some very good thought going on in there.)

    Any other scientists you wanna put up against that bunch I listed?

    THERE ARE NONE. Not that we won’t demolish, one hand behind our backs. Go on. Try us.

    (Stopping you before you waste your time: they’ll all say some version of “it isn’t proven.” Cute, with makeup. But every other phenomenon for which there is this much evidence, science has proven.)

    You’re not being argued with.

    You’re being educated.

    You really don’t want science to look for some reason. Tell us what that is. Start with your mom, when you were four. That’s where we left off last session.

    (If they don’t quit now, just to make it interesting for me, I’m not going to type anything new to respond to their next posts. I’m just gonna crib from previous posts.)

    Done that reading yet?

  82. corrick responds:

    Last call for me anyway.

    Kopite: there is good reason why eyewitness testimony doesn’t constitute scientific proof or is considered testable no matter how many claim to have seen the same thing at the same time. Otherwise, ghosts, UFO’s, and even dragons would all be accepted as fact. And why some of you may live long enough to see a day when eyewitness testimony becomes inadmissible as evidence in our own court systems just like polygraphs. Hasn’t anyone here ever read “Eyewitness Testimony” by Elizabeth Loften. It’s now required reading in every law school I know of. While eyewitness testimony may still constitute evidence in a court of law, it no longer does in the court of science.

    I was wrong to imply the P-G footprint measurements cast doubt on the film’s authenticity. Not 24/7 bigfoot. As I recall the lengths are used to buttress or debunk various guesstimates as to height and weight.

    DWA
    I asked you for some specific examples of testable evidence outside eyewitness testimony, anecdotes or the P-G film. You offered none.

    All you do is rant about how mainstream scientists continue to ignore all the “evidence”. What acceptable evidence? Yours? May I remind you it is not up to science to disprove negatives or to investigate what you personally feel is important.

    You constantly lament (actually you scream) that if only for a couple of well funded expeditions by scientists bigfoot would be proven to exist. Not a scientist, but have a number of friends who are University level ornithologists, zoologists, botinists, etc who have conducted exploratory trips some resulting in the discovery of new species, though not any spectacular ones. I can assure you that even a one month long field trip overseas with 4 PHD’s including airfare costs less than a half hour of just one “Finding Bigfoot” episode.

    You think bigfoot exists? You actually want to try to make that happen? Then why aren’t you sending post after post to Animal Planet 24/7? Or are you already doing that already?

    No need to reply DWA. I won’t no matter what you write.

  83. DWA responds:

    ‘bye corrick!

    At least I won’t have to suffer him again after I deal with his latest post. (I love the hammer.) Even worth posting some original stuff. Even if he wears a steel pot, I’m educating future zoologists; this place gets a lot of hits. Pay attention, kids.

    “Kopite: there is good reason why eyewitness testimony doesn’t constitute scientific proof or is considered testable no matter how many claim to have seen the same thing at the same time. Otherwise, ghosts, UFO’s, and even dragons would all be accepted as fact.”

    (He didn’t even get the guy right. ’twas Alamo. Just giving you an idea how seriously to take him.)

    He’s wrong. (But you knew that.) Eyewitness testimony, to be considered compelling, requires two things: frequency and coherence. There not only have to be lots of witnesses, but what they describe must be consistent. The testimony for none of the things cited by corrick possesses the latter. I won’t waste time proving that; you know it. Read reports – he doesn’t – and you’ll see the eyewitness testimony to the sasquatch has coherence in spades. Element after element, trait after trait, feature after feature, consistently described.

    5,000 people see the ghost of Stonewall Jackson. OK, know what he looks like?

    The same number see a bigfoot. Read the reports. You’ll know what one looks like.

    (Note again that scoftics can’t seem to deal with evidence and proof as separate entities, which they most certainly are, even though they are separated only by one thing: the society accepts the latter. Eyewitness testimony CANNOT BE PROOF!!! That’s Time #15,996 on this site. I’m counting.)

    “And why some of you may live long enough to see a day when eyewitness testimony becomes inadmissible as evidence in our own court systems just like polygraphs. Hasn’t anyone here ever read “Eyewitness Testimony” by Elizabeth Loften. It’s now required reading in every law school I know of. While eyewitness testimony may still constitute evidence in a court of law, it no longer does in the court of science.”

    Once again, a scoftic displays a misunderstanding of the difference between evidence and proof, which amounts to:

    Society accepts proof.

    That’s it.

    (That’s a crib.)

    “I asked you for some specific examples of testable evidence outside eyewitness testimony, anecdotes or the P-G film. You offered none.”

    Note the scoftic dodge: if I don’t like what you offer I’m gonna say it’s not good enough! Oh, it’s good enough.

    “All you do is rant about how mainstream scientists continue to ignore all the “evidence”. What acceptable evidence? Yours? May I remind you it is not up to science to disprove negatives or to investigate what you personally feel is important.”

    Science isn’t a people, corrick, it’s a practice. The evidence for sasquatch is evidence, as science defines it. Science thus has the de facto responsibility to address it. How hard is this? Once again a scoftic mentions “acceptable” evidence (to him). I am only interested in acceptable evidence to science. (Not to “scientists.” They are a people. Science is a PRACTICE, to which scientists must conform or not be practicing their profession.)

    (That quote up there is a rant.)

    “You constantly lament (actually you scream) that if only for a couple of well funded expeditions by scientists bigfoot would be proven to exist.”

    When did Cryptomundo posts go audio? What does that passage even mean? (That’s a rant there.) And does he contest my point? No, HE MAKES IT FOR ME:

    “but have a number of friends who are University level ornithologists, zoologists, botinists, etc who have conducted exploratory trips some resulting in the discovery of new species, though not any spectacular ones. I can assure you that even a one month long field trip overseas with 4 PHD’s including airfare costs less than a half hour of just one “Finding Bigfoot” episode.”

    That says: it’s cheap! LET’S DO IT!

    (Spell “botanist” correctly. Your friends will appreciate it.)

    If it’s so cheap, why is he so insistent that it not be done? What IS this mentality?

    (Animal Planet are the last people I want on this. He watches “Finding Bigfoot,” doesn’t he? I sure don’t.)

    I don’t want to make it happen, although if scientists reading my posts get a welcome blast of fresh-air logic on this topic for a change it would do them a power of good.

    I WANT THEM TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. IT’S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS SCIENTISTS.

    Although they do seem to have this insistence on making their world as dull as possible. What’s up with that?

  84. zpf responds:

    Ploughboy: “But…each and every time I look at it, no matter if I just viewed it the day before, it induces in me the same feelings of wonder and joy. This is: There are still things out there not contemplated in our philosophy.”

    Worth repeating….

    “We should put her on the face of a 3 dollar bill….to be know forever as a ‘Patty.’”

    lol, LOVE it…. a hologram of that gif up at the top of the page would be sweet!

  85. DWA responds:

    Have any of you budding zoologists out there noticed one thing about corrick’s posts? And other scoftic coprolites?

    Whoa. Some of you are pretty smart!

    They never – ever – come up with one scientist who has a rational objection to Sasquatch proponents.

    Interesting, wot?

  86. Alamo responds:

    Hey corrick,

    I think you’re talking about Loftus and Palmer’s work. I haven’t read all of it… but I think it mostly deals with individual eyewitnesses during traumatic experiences and their inability to remember under those conditions. A Bigfoot encounter may traumatize some to the point where their recollection suffers… but I’d say for most it is a wondrous experience, which might actually increase perception and recall. Every time I’ve ever seen or done something amazing it’s always been etched into my memory. As if I had amazing powers of observation, minute details would jump out at me during those events… like my brain was in some sort of temporarily turbocharged state.

    The Invisible Gorilla experiment shows it graphically, I don’t think we need to belabour the point any more: individual eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Half missed the gorilla… but the other half didn’t. Point is, the larger the statistical sample, the smarter the collective mind gets. An individual ant is mindless, but a colony of them could build the Eiffel Tower from both sides and meet perfectly in the middle. You might be surprised at the great perception, cognition and decision making powers of large numbers when taken in aggregate. As a body, I submit that aggregated eyewitness testimony outstrips the observations of experts. In ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’, James Surowiecki makes a compelling case for this position.

  87. Kopite responds:

    Yes DWA……….t’wasn’t me who said eye witness reports should count as ‘proof’. I never wrote any such thing. I just talked about Patty and her footsize, film speed etc.

  88. DWA responds:

    Alamo: you are a flat asset to the board, man.

    For maybe the 1,384,048th time I’ve said it here:

    Homo sapiens is the nonpareil observer among the species that have graced this planet. Mistakes are possible, and when you have as many things crossing your eyes as do on an average day, you are gonna make some (particularly when your biases ….I didn’t see a Bigfoot….that wasn’t a Bigfoot…I know that wasn’t a Bigfoot…come into play).

    But think about it. You live by your eyes….and could you live at all if they lied to you more than an infinitesimal percentage of the time? We know the answer, all of us.

    3.5 million years of evolution says this:

    When you see a bigfoot, your eyes aren’t lying to you.

    If there is a typical sasquatch observation, it has two salient features.

    1. The witness has never seen P/G.
    2. The witness has just had a battlefield promotion from scoftic to proponent.

    (If you disagree, it’s proof positive you don’t read them.)

    Many witnesses endure months, years of uncertainty, even despair, over seeing something that wasn’t real. Many of them are so wracked they tell people….and frequently find out that was a bad idea. But surprisingly frequent are those who get the response: I can tell looking at you your world just got shattered. I believe you.

    (The confidant, in practically every latter case, just got a battlefield promotion from scoftic to proponent.)

    What finally leads the witness to report the encounter…and even to say, TO A BIGFOOT WEBSITE, “I don’t want you making fun of me”?

    Here it is:

    The witness’s eyes – as virtually infallible a mechanism as exists in nature – telling the witness over and over again, frequently over vehement and irrational denial:

    You saw it. Just admit it.

    Eyewitness testimony isn’t just the bedrock of the legal system and of science.

    It is the bedrock of human existence.

    If it isn’t of yours: tell us how you are getting along without eyes. (Some do.)

  89. Ploughboy responds:

    Mr. Corrick: I’d welcome a discourse on the vagaries of eyewitness testimony, in the context of Bigfoot studies. Thing is though, you’re going to have to spend the time to read the transcripts. Simply put, if you dismiss thousands of eyewitness accounts out of hand as not worthy of consideration you only demonstrate to me that you are not serious.

    Eyewitness testimony is something I’m pretty familiar with as I’ve made my living in the courtroom defending civil suits for the last 25 years. You are correct in stating that eyewitness testimony is (given that it is, necessarily, a human process) fallible. Our system of jurisprudence presupposes that. That is why the evidence is tested in the courtroom. That is why you have a jury. That is why (in most jurisdictions) you have twelve jurors, not just a judge. As the old saw goes: “It is not a great system, only the best one ever devised.”

    Same goes for scientific consideration of eyewitness testimony. If you remove that evidence from your discussion, you’re imposing a degree of empiricism that science never has required, and never would survive. Frankly, it would be the same as trying a lawsuit while making all eyewitness testimony inadmissible. That is: An absurdity.

    After you’ve read a significant number of those accounts, and if you then want to discuss what they contain, I’d love to have that conversation, and be serious about this.

  90. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy:

    Touche.

    An alternative read of the post I put up before yours is:

    Dismissing eyewitness testimony without review – given what we know about our own daily lives – is a hospitalizably irrational act.

  91. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy:

    “If you remove that evidence from your discussion, you’re imposing a degree of empiricism that science never has required, and never would survive.”

    And as always, I’ve already posted, then I see something great that’s been added, and to which I can add.

    People who misunderstand science – and many scientists do, just as many auto mechanics can fix a 1975 Pinto, just don’t give ‘em a Mercedes – frequently consider proof this iron-hard thing with consistent factory specifications that runs across the sciences. This is, of course, poppycock.

    If astronomy ran by the same rules of proof as biology, we would acknowledge the earth, the sun (I mean, sucker’s bright, and hot, kinda hard to ignore) and the moon. We likely would not have visited the moon yet. And everything else would be a light in the sky, about which statements of any firmness would be impossible.

    As astronomy accepts, as a given, that most of what is in the sky we will never visit, astronomy doesn’t insist on a specimen. It allows proxies, almost every object that has been identified being considered real, and specified as to what it is, based on those proxies alone.

    (Oh. For the moon: we rely on eyewitness testimony [astronauts, and scientific interpretation of photographs], supplemented by mineral samples. All the rest: proxy data. Nobody put the moon on a table and dissected it.)

    But look how flexible astronomy is, compared to biology, again based on that we’ll-never-get-there-but-why-should-that-box-us-in? assumption. The proxies may be rigorous. But in zoology, proxies are unacceptable.

    And note how VERY flexible paleontology is. We’re never going to see one of these. So we will allow much speculation on what it is, what it ate and what it looked like. There must be a well-reasoned argument behind this speculation (which can only rely, when it comes down to it, on the animals we have seen, put on tables, and dissected). But speculation is what it is, and that is all it can ever be, short of recreating one of these things from miraculously preserved DNA.

    There you are.

    But zoology can advance. Through, of course, the same intelligent speculation. It has made general rules for this speculation.

    One of them:

    Eyewitness testimony – although we can never admit it as proof – can compel follow-up research, if many are seeing something, and they describe it consistently.

  92. Ploughboy responds:

    And just in case you do want to get serious Corrick, let me kick-start the conversation here. Any take on the eyewitness accounts has to consider these explanations of what they document:

    1.The witness is truthfully and accurately describing what they saw/experienced, but they were witnessing a hoax.

    2.The witness and/or reporter is not truthfully describing a real experience, but made it up entirely as a hoaxed report.

    3.The witness is truthfully describing a real experience, but they misinterpreted what they saw.

    4.The witness is deranged, delusional, intoxicated or otherwise unstable and untrustworthy.

    5.The witness is and/or reporting/ some combination of all of the above.

    6.The witness experienced an encounter with a real animal, commonly referred to as a Sasquatch.

    Again though, it seems to be axiomatic that a person who is serious about such a discussion cannot legitimately point to any of these explanations (and then only as to one report at a time) before reading them.

  93. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy: I really need to read your posts more thoroughly.

    But then, not doing so does break my posts into digestible chunks.

    “Simply put, if you dismiss thousands of eyewitness accounts out of hand as not worthy of consideration you only demonstrate to me that you are not serious.”

    And it doesn’t matter who “you” are.

    If you are a Ph.D in both primatology and anthropology; the most-quoted authority in the field; published time out of mind; got a great blog on the internet

    (and I am looking at YOU, John D. Hawks)

    …and I don’t care what else, and dismiss the eyewitness testimony, I am simply going to chuckle at you, and turn away to find someone serious. You have just announced to me that there’s nothing you can contribute to this discussion.

  94. William responds:

    Another aspect of this film I find as something that possibly authenticates as a real is the “jiggling” of the breasts. In order to get such a realistic action it would probably take a modern costume maker to actually insert breast implants to get this to show. Does anyone truly believe Roger Patterson had the time, money, wherewithall and ability to go that far with a costume back then? And even if he did, why bother to go to all of that painstaking detail???? Can a ny skeptic try to explain this aspect away?

  95. DWA responds:

    William:

    Your query gets to the heart of the most critical aspect of skeptical assessment of this film.

    It’s not enough to allege character problems with Patterson, or to say “that could have been faked.” You have to show how this could have been done. The site is known; the subject left footprints that have withstood expert scrutiny; if that’s a suit it was as unique as any prop in moviemaking history. Who could have done this; what could have been the motivation; and most importantly (and the first two mean nothing without this)…How was it done?

    Unless skeptics can easily show this, they cannot presume the film to be fake. That it is a legitimate unlisted animal is, in fact, the more likely scenario, until a thorough proof of hoaxing is delivered.

    And that doesn’t mean we have proof of sasquatch. It means the question is wide open, with no good reason existing to believe a fake.

  96. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy: you have only yourself to blame for continually making good points.

    Another way of putting his post on reviewing the eyewitness accounts ( mine is longer winded, but there’s a method…):

    The skeptical (I’ll be nice and use that word) camp must have an entry in this scientific debate, just as the proponents must. They’ve gotten away with too much lazy cotton-candy theorizing, that plays easily to the peanut gallery and has cowed interested scientists from addressing the evidence, and the public from insisting that this happen.

    As they appear either unaware of their duty to science or unwilling to state their case, here it is (and this is the only way of stating it):

    Every sasquatch record can be categorized as one or more types of false positive (which Ploughboy ably lays out).

    In other words, every sighting, every tree knock, every footprint, every you name it – every one – is something identifiable other than an unlisted species, a mundane occurrence that changes nothing about our world other than solving a little mystery.

    Note that this is a very makeable case. (In theory.) The skeptics are not being asked – as they frequently claim they are – to prove a negative. All they are being asked is to pick a place to start, say the BFRO database, and debunk, one after another, every single report on it. Then, continue to the John Green database, and debunk every single report. Then on to the Texas Bigfoot database. I just listed the big three.

    (Or, given the topic, sure, start with this film. But when you are done with this film, go up a paragraph, ’cause you just got under way.)

    Now. It is not enough to say “this isn’t proof.” One MUST prove that film, or this report, is not a bigfoot, by proving what it is instead. Then go to the next report. Then the next…until every single report has been discredited, or such a significant percentage of the whole (with no “uncertains” that could very possibly be actual records) that even the proponents have to toss up their hands and say: we were duped.

    If you don’t do this…well, what you are doing is dismissing things you know nothing about. You are presuming an epic level of looniness, or an unprecedented conspiracy. (Or chance beyond any conceivable bet.) You are fencing off scientific inquiry – for some reason you will have to explain to me but I doubt I would get it – and obstructing a scientific investigation by setting potential investigators – to say nothing of members of the public who are witnessing this phenomenon personally – up as objects of ridicule.

    And this is, what, OK? Under what conceivable circumstances could it be?

    Why would anyone skeptical of this phenomenon NOT want science to engage it and come to a conclusion?

    (Particularly when I still have yet to hear a rational objection to the evidence?)

    You will excuse us normally curious humans for thinking that either steel-headedly oblivious, or one of the weirdest things we are aware of.

    So. If you consider this task too hard to do

    (and yes, it’s required for your position to be taken seriously)

    great. Join with the proponents – and those of us who are legitimately skeptical – in putting this issue at the feet of the scientific establishment for a resolution that would likely take, once they are engaged, a matter of months.

    (Doubt that, and you have announced a need to get acquainted with the evidence.)

  97. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    Shoot, I might buy “The Wisdom Of Crowds.”

    I gleaned this off the Amazon blurb.

    ———————————–
    “Wise crowds” need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people’s errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are “smarter” than if a single expert had been in charge.
    ———————————–

    Bigfoot eyewitnesses meet each condition in spades.

    (1) Read the reports. It’s a cross-section of North America: races, sexes, educational level, socioeconomic condition, you name it. As diverse as it’s possible to get.

    (2) Databases accept individual reports from individuals. Even when an investigator performs folllow-up, the original report submission is kept intact. When there are multiple witnesses, the investigator contacts each one independently and compares their stories.

    (3) Couldn’t be more decentralized.

    (4) Databases are the aggregating mechanism.

    Wonder what Surowiecki would think about this discussion.

  98. Ploughboy responds:

    Exactamundo DWA.

    And you know, instead of these reports coming in from all points of the compass, we see that they have areas of specific geographic concentration, with the occasional outlier. I believe we call that a “range.”

    For the most part, rural people are having these encounters, as you would expect to happen if you are documenting a forest/edge habitat dwelling critter. There is more than a little whiff of bubba-biased criticism coming from some because of that. Really a shame to not appreciate that those who are in the habitat daily are the best candidates to not only have the encounter, but to also have the local knowledge to classify it whith some degree of certainty. (You know….how could a tundra-dwelling/hunting Inuit possibly confuse a bear with something else? Not bloody likely.) When we get over the idea that rural citizens are inherently stupid, we’ll be better able to confront the evidence they bring.

  99. Alamo responds:

    DWA,

    Thank you sir.

    I thought The Wisdom of Crowds a lot more specific and germane to the topic at hand than the work of Loftus. While many on the internet are dumber than a box of rocks (my apologies to rocks- some of my best friends are rocks), as a whole, it’s been able to scoop experts and the mainstream media on numerous occasions.

    For those that arrived late, I will attempt to summarize the discussion so far:

    “The P/G film is inconclusive and probably fake, you’ll have to give me something else.”

    “OK, how about the copious eyewitness testimony?”

    “Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.”

    “How about the vast geographical and historical distribution of these encounters?”

    “Meh… eyewitness testimony is unreliable.”

    “How about the footprints found on the scene?”

    “Inconclusive and probably fake… not enough.”

    “How about the vast geographical and historical distribution of these footprints?”

    “Meh… it’s probably a conspiracy of some sort.”

    “How about the work of Meldrum?”

    “What’s the big deal with Meldrum, why are you guys so obsessed with Meldrum?

    “How about Krantz?

    “Why are you guys so obsessed with Meldrum and Krantz?”

    “How about Alley, Chilcutt, Coon, Goodall, Higgins, Johnson, Mionczynski, Naish, Schaller, Swindler, etc.. etc…?”

    “Another conspiracy… voodoo scientists, the lot of them. OK then, if you’re not going to give me any evidence, I might as well go home…”

    “How about the various DNA samples and the work of Dr. Ketchum?”

    “chirp… chirp…”

    OK, I will do the job that the so called skeptics seem unwilling or unable to do. (purely as an intellectual exercise, personally I think debunking the P/G film would be moot because of the aforementioned Eiffel Tower of ants pointing like a giant finger towards Bigfoot)

    Where is the original film? Has anyone but Munns worked with the 1st gen copy in the possession of Patterson’s widow? If so, does their work replicate the compelling elements shown in the Munns restoration? If no one else has had access to the 1st gen copy and the original is missing, are all contemporary “enhanced” videos sourced solely from Munns work… did Munns monkey with the movie?

  100. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy: another excellent point.

    These encounters are, without exception, by people one would expect, in places one would expect.

    And the incorrect takes on the evidence are urban takes.

    Nothing surprising here.

    And yes, it seems logical for people who know the country to know what lives there.

    Listen to a city slicker talk critters, and the dimensions of the problem become clear.

  101. DWA responds:

    Whoa.

    Count this one or not as you will, looks like we’re going over 100 posts!

  102. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    Indeed.

    From now on it’s:

    Do you read about this much?

    If not, I’ll just say: use that search engine, and read up. Catch you when you’re ready.

  103. corrick responds:

    Thought I’d help you guys get to 100. Oops. Guess you’re already there.

    Surprise. For your information, I have read at minimum 40 books devoted to the topic of bigfoot or other possible unknown hominids. Watched countless hours of TV shows on bigfoot, etc. so I am not completely ill-informed on the topic. I’ll try to be brief and keep it civil.

    Let’s for argument sake say that bigfoot actually exists. And that we all agree that eyewitness testimony is inconclusive. Fair enough?

    Then obviously some of these reports must be very accurate and some maybe not so much, but all describe a real bigfoot encounter and therefore merit serious study. However, some of these sighting reports must also be skewed by mis-identifications, false memory, hallucinations and naturally hoaxes.

    So here’s some food for thought.
    Since there is no documented bigfoot appearance or behavior as compiled over the years by qualified observers how can anyone separate true bigfoot reports from the rest? You? “Bigfoot Experts”? And before anyone replies with, “I just know,” just think about this regarding the P-G film. For more than seven seconds.

    Ever since Close Encounters of a Third Kind was first released in 1977 eyewinesss accounts of the appearace of aliens in encounters with or abductions by have changed so such that today virtually all accounts refer to creatures depicted from that movie. In UFO speak, known as the grays.

    My bottom line should be obvious. Even if bigfoot exists, no one can definitely separate truth from fiction. And why all maps, graphs or “squatch-knowledge” is bogus. Just speculations from the eye of the beholder.

    “How about the various DNA samples and the work of Dr. Ketchum?”
    You dream large.

  104. DWA responds:

    Corrick:

    List the books.

    Anyone who knows much about animals and reads them will know that the reports add up to one. The odds of that happening with a random concatenation of lies, hoaxes, etc.: no one bets them. The only other possibility: a centuries-old conspiracy of experts.

    Betting that?

    You have to come up with a reason that scientists can say: not worth looking, ’cause that ain’t real.

    You didn’t.

    As John Green says it:

    “The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is certainly ample to establish that the matter should be further investigated.”

    True. You won’t be able to find the scientist who can win an argument on that point. He’ll simply show he hasn’t read up.

    (They have to be the right books. And if he hasn’t read the reports, forget it.)

  105. Ploughboy responds:

    Corrick…glad you came back.

    The UFO thing, yeah. Seems like Bigfoot and aliens are forever co-joined. Guess we have the tabloid press to thank for that meme. But, when you think about it, the comparison is pretty apt. (And I am an agnostic on the subject of aliens…I just haven’t read as much about it, and can’t offer an informed opinion) There is no more profound “other” than the one that probably walks amongst us. That might explain the coupling of the two in the popular culture.

    I too would like to know what books you have read that specifically address the eyewitness reports. Mainly because I’d like to buy that/those books. That is where the focus needs to be brought to bear, I think.

    That DNA boondoggle. I hear ya. I don’t think many here are standing on one foot holding our breath to hear from Dr. Ketchum. Very weird weirdness surrounds that whole mess, and I think her cred is in serious tatters, if she ever had any. Me, I’m very interested in Dr. Sykes’ DNA project, which has been above-board and well documented. He has announced that he probably will have results to publish as early as Dec. Amazingly, he has gone on record as saying he doesn’t know what the results might yield, but feels that good science compels him to look for answers. Imagine that. He is also not just taking random samples of anything that walks in the door. With Jeff Meldrum, he is screening samples based on the context from which they were taken. Yup, based on the eyewitness testimony supporting the taking of the sample. I think he stands to have his reputation enhanced, whichever way the results land. We need a bunch more like him.

  106. DWA responds:

    “Ever since Close Encounters of a Third Kind was first released in 1977 eyewinesss accounts of the appearace of aliens in encounters with or abductions by have changed so such that today virtually all accounts refer to creatures depicted from that movie. In UFO speak, known as the grays.”

    In all the decades that people have been filing sasquatch sighting reports, what they’re describing has never changed.

    What gives Patty her power is that reports aren’t by and large being made by people who have seen the film. Very few of the reports I have read even mention P/G. These people are describing, from scratch, an animal that walks like and looks like the animal in the film, and leaves similar tracks. What I have found is that people close to cryptzoology think that everybody’s seen this film. Most haven’t.

    Of course we can’t use UFO’s as an example of a phenomenon that has frequency and coherence. The reason? The name. They’re “unidentified.” A perusal of records shows why. No two reports describe the same thing. (Nessie, btw, is similar in that way, from my read.) That’s not “coherence.” The quality of what we are getting for the sasquatch – if you read the reports – would be as if we could determine, for UFOs, what the propulsion mechanism is, what the pilots look like, and the star system they came from.

    THat’s coherence.

  107. DWA responds:

    There was another thing I needed to say here. (Actually I can go all day, try me.)

    ———————————-
    Since there is no documented bigfoot appearance or behavior as compiled over the years by qualified observers how can anyone separate true bigfoot reports from the rest?. …Even if bigfoot exists, no one can definitely separate truth from fiction. And why all maps, graphs or “squatch-knowledge” is bogus. Just speculations from the eye of the beholder.
    ———————————–

    Not how this works.

    Here’s why I’m not holding my breath for any DNA work: none of it will mean a thing until there is a type specimen against which to compare the sample. “Unknown primate” has come back, more than once. That’s not enough. Could be an orang on the loose. Until the sasquatch has been confirmed, all the DNA work can do – and it should by all means be done – is provide material against which to check the type specimen while the animal’s range is being nailed down.

    There is PLENTY of “documented bigfoot appearance or behavior as compiled over the years by qualified observers.” This is why you have to read the reports. People only report what they see, hear, smell, etc. The qualified observers compiling and interpreting the information are such as Bindernagel, who has shown that many great ape behaviors were documented for the sasquatch long before anyone was studying the known great apes in the wild. Nothing interesting about that? To presume that there is nothing one can do about that until a body lands on our heads is to misunderstand how science is supposed to work in exploring the unknown. The key evidence is frequently not the proof, but the leads that get us to the proof.

    If you read the reports, you feel in your bootsoles – presuming your personal analysis software works well, and being reasonably well-versed in the outdoors and in the ways of animals helps – that all that bogus information isn’t bogus at all, because it’s in the reports. It’s part of the coherence. This animal behaves, in every way everyone who knows a significant amount about the topic would predict, just as a large temperate-zone omnivore would be predicted to behave. It lives where one would live; it eats what one would eat; etc.

    It would actually be suspicious if this WERE being initially reported by scientists. (It’s easy to see why this is.) It’s not. It’s coming out of reports by average Joes. Whom I would never count on to provide me with a range map of an unknown species, would you?

    The reports, just like the DNA, can’t provide proof. (I will never get why people think anyone thinks this is proven.) Their coherence is internal. They show consistencies that predict a source external to the observers. They aren’t required to be proof to be extremely compelling evidence that says: we’re gonna find this, when we look.

    Once again:

    You cannot say what a true vs. false report is until the animal is confirmed.

    Which no one is doing, on anything anyone would call, charitably, a part-time basis.

    Science doesn’t wait until it’s clouted in the snout by a body. Science investigates. That’s what’s going on. Well, with a few scientists who get it, anyway

  108. DWA responds:

    “I too would like to know what books you have read that specifically address the eyewitness reports. Mainly because I’d like to buy that/those books. That is where the focus needs to be brought to bear, I think.”

    Really, Ploughboy, the only books that count for much on this topic are the ones that address eyewitness reports.

    I’m a little mystified that a read of 40 (!) books could yield a no-way viewpoint. That points to the wrong books. And on this topic, there are a lot of those.

    It occurred to me that this might not be as obvious to others as it is to me.

    “It would actually be suspicious if this WERE being initially reported by scientists. (It’s easy to see why this is.) It’s not. It’s coming out of reports by average Joes. Whom I would never count on to provide me with a range map of an unknown species, would you?”

    What I mean is: the average Joes are not providing the range maps.

    The animal is, by where it shows up.

    If a scientist didn’t consider that compelling – to paraphrase John Green, it’s really interesting how people’s imaginations dry up where the average rainfall is under 17 inches per year – I would really take him to task on why he didn’t. His degree(s) wouldn’t be helping him much at that point.

  109. DWA responds:

    Since I know all you budding zoologists out there (no school tomorrow, yay!) are all over this, here’s some very non-bogus range mapping.

  110. DWA responds:

    Another thing about this:

    (I can’t help it. Lots of budding zoologists out there; and they need to read up, fast. Insights, angles, enlightenment, I’m all over it.)

    “Since there is no documented bigfoot appearance or behavior as compiled over the years by qualified observers…”

    Other than being yet another way of saying “that’s not proof” (been there, long ago), this says that if you aren’t a “qualified observer,” you will not recognize a bigfoot as anything unusual when you see one; won’t be able to report it intelligently; or will just be lying.

    Nothing I’ve learned about life says you should expect any of those problems as a matter of course. Not if your general day is one you get through OK.

    The “qualified observers” are taking what the public reports and connecting dots. And more-than-qualified-enough observers like Ploughboy and Alamo and me know they are doing an excellent job.

    Because we read the reports.

  111. DWA responds:

    (Forgot: tell us what those 40 books are, Corrick.)

  112. Alamo responds:

    “Pshaw! Dr. Ketchum… good luck with that.”

    “OK, how about Stubstad and Sykes?”

    If you notice, I am not making any value judgments… I never said Ketchum was the Obi Wan of the BF DNA movement. My questions were simply, “How about this?”. My point in the summation wasn’t to poke fun, it was to point out… as DWA and others have… that there is no substantive effort to address the actual arguments. The playground technique of rephrasing the question as if it were ridiculous, then dismissing it out of hand… “(dismissive scoffing here) Yeah, that doesn’t count.”… doesn’t count. If we looked in depth into the individual elements: the P/G film, eyewitness accounts, historical accounts, footprints, DNA… we would see that there certainly is a good bit of BS floating around, but the vast preponderance of the data is supportive. What we have is a half dozen major elements where the evidence points the same direction. If we addressed the actual issues, this would be apparent. Stubstad came to study BF in exactly that way, he was challenged by someone and called close minded… stung, he actually looked at the data… and guess what? It was so compelling, he started his own investigation. Too bad he’s no longer with us. More on Stubstad here: http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/stubstad-obit/

    Admittedly, there are problems with the publication of Dr. Ketchum’s work, but why not debate the actual substance of the issues? To me, there are two benefits to her work… even if her paper is never published. She’s acted as the official sacrificial lamb of scientific orthodoxy, doesn’t matter who went first… the reaction of the scientific community was a foregone conclusion. My theory is (for what it’s worth) that her peer group objected to the language in her proposed paper, but the data she had was compelling in and of itself… why? The scientific establishment like corporate Hollywood has very little imagination… and like Hollywood, the scientific establishment will steal a good idea from their colleagues so quickly it will make your head spin. In science, like movies, it makes no difference who started production first… only who releases first. Anything coming out after the first release is considered a “knock off” of the “original”. Ever wonder why all of a sudden there are numerous other “parallel” projects underway? I take this as an indication that there were significant compelling elements in her data, so now others are scrambling to replicate it and publish first with language more palatable to the mainstream. Lausanne Museum/ Oxford University are not lightweight names… all of a sudden they are doing a BF DNA project on the off chance that something may turn up? Now it’s my turn to scoff…

  113. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    There are at least two other Stubstads in bigfoot research: Daris Swindler and Jimmy Chilcutt (whom I mention in a post above).

    They are typical of those who take a closer look at the evidence, in that everyone I am aware of who has done so has become a proponent of further research, if not of the outright reality of the animal.

    “The playground technique of rephrasing the question as if it were ridiculous, then dismissing it out of hand… “(dismissive scoffing here) Yeah, that doesn’t count.”… doesn’t count.”

    No kidding. You don’t get to specify, based on your taste or inadequate information, what evidence is acceptable here. Even if you are a scientist, you must follow the rules of science to determine the admissibility of evidence.

    The eyewitness reports and footprints alone have each been considered by proponent scientists to affirm the animal’s reality. They are absolutely admissible, even if not yet accepted by the mainstream as proof, and they point in the same direction this film does, to an unlisted animal.

    Here’s something to chew on from arkive.org:

    “The kouprey has been known to Western science since 1937 (7), although it had been discovered previously, when in 1929 an American man and his son shot and killed an unidentified ungulate to use as tiger bait whilst big game hunting. The bones were recovered and sent to the University of Kansas’ Museum of Natural History, but were not examined until 1982.”

    However the sasquatch is confirmed, my bet is that when that happens, we’re looking at the discovery shot right here. Could have come at least twelve years earlier, if William Roe had had a camera. Not to mention quite a few before him.

  114. DWA responds:

    Holy cow! A report that mentions P/G! Gotta frame these.

    Well….if the film depicts a real animal, why wouldn’t the ones people see look like the one in the film? Particularly if you’re talking about the same general region of the continent?



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



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