Sasquatch Maximus

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 10th, 2007

Patty

Many may tire of viewing this footage during this, its 40th year. But it remains my favorite Bigfoot film, for every time I look at it, I ponder the wonder of a hominoid that may be there, right before our eyes.

What are your top three reasons for considering this the best piece of evidence for Bigfoot existence?

And if a skeptic, what are your top three reasons for feeling the opposite?

So, what was someone saying about the gluteus maximus looking stranger than the mammary glands?

Will new attention to this film reveal new insights in 2007?

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


221 Responses to “Sasquatch Maximus”

  1. Lyndon responds:

    rbhess wrote:

    THAT is why your reasoning is specious. You make too many assumptions, and are far too firm about the ones you make

    Complete nonsense. It is an established fact that Roger Patterson never ever claimed to have found any more bigfoot tracks post the 1967 Bluff Creek filmsite.

    Why are you trying to argue this point? Your excuse about “well we don’t know that he didn’t fake any” is completely ridiculous and irrelevant.

    We KNOW that he didn’t claim to find any more and THAT is the most telling aspect of his whole post ’67 behaviour.

    You are simply clutching at straws with your whole “he could have done this and he could have done that” carry on. We have NOTHING to point to him doing so so please stop your weak, wishful thinking attempt to argue your way out of a corner.

  2. Lyndon responds:

    Daniel Loxton incorrectly writes:

    The creature in the P/G film is consistent with a guy in a home-made suit,

    Which specific guy in a home-made suit is it consistent with then Daniel? Can you direct me to this guy in a suit?

    Which guy in a suit has ever walked bipedally with such a bulky and cumbersome suit on, complete with huge fake feet, along a dried up river bed and yet at the same time looking perfectly comfortable, at home and at complete ease in said suit???

    People who make such incorrect and ignorant statements such as you Daniel obviously have little knowledge about the history of bipedal apeman/bigfoot suits and the actors who have worn such suits.

    There has been NO OTHER suit and NO OTHER ACTOR in a bipedal apeman/bigfoot suit that is consistent with that we see in the P/G footage.

    There is not even one example to show this. Good luck in trying to dig one up. You won’t be able to.

    Cheers!

  3. DWA responds:

    Lyndon’s doing a good job, so I don’t need to back him up.

    But there is one and only one reason we are still talking about Patterson: it most certainly does not look like any guy, in any conceivable suit.

    That suit instills wonder – even in those who believe it faked – because it’s natural. It doesn’t look that way. It is. The gait is totally unaffected, and easy, under conditions the toughness of which can be unappreciated by people who, I’m sure, haven’t tried it.

    Note that I can’t say that this is definitely not a fake (as those who are not reading my arguments are incorrectly concluding). But that is the last thing it looks like; and the skeptics are missing that this is precisely the thing that grabs them about it. To assert with available evidence that Patterson did this is, well, Rembrandt never did anything as good.

    Yes. It is that good.

    And if Patterson is that good, I require proof, because it is, on its face, as absurd a notion as the one that Hieronymous correctly described the suit he wore, the one you can see, right there.

    As I have said, many times: we have two totally absurd notions competing with each other here – an uncatalogued American ape and rubes building the best suit ever. One has just had much more evidence presented for it than the other.

    Despite one of the wildest claims I’ve ever read on this site – rbhess and I got off on the wrong foot, and maybe we’ll fix it down the line, but I didn’t really think I’d gotten him that angry – Patterson-Gimlin, in forty years, has never been debunked. It has, however, been thoroughly poisoned. And this poisoning, by an irrational rush to judgment despite no analysis ever supporting that judgment, has me continually coming back to a thought:

    Why DO proponents wish this would go away?

    Sure, they have tons of evidence without it.

    But. When all the evidence we have on this one says, we don’t know, but it seems to be what it looks like, why would we turn away?

    Well, maybe – after forty years – we haven’t. (Over 200 posts.) And maybe someday before we all die, truly open eyes will look at this film again, and do with it what should have been done in the first place:

    Follow the evidence, all of it, up to see where it leads.

  4. Daniel Loxton responds:

    Lyndon writes,

    Which specific guy in a home-made suit is it consistent with then Daniel? Can you direct me to this guy in a suit?

    This request really sidesteps the concept of “home-made.” If it is an improvised one-off, as I think it is, then we could no more find an exact match for it than we could find two people making the exact same home-made pasta sauce.

    In general terms it’s entirely consistent with a guy in a home-made suit. It’s (only somewhat) persuasive to viewers from the general population, as was the home-made Mission bus driver suit; it’s persuasive to Bigfoot researchers, as the home-made Marx suit initially was. And, the Patterson creature looks like a guy in a suit. Yes, it presumably also looks something like a real sasquatch, but to most viewers it is intuitively obvious that it could be a suit.

    My point is not whether it could in principle be a suit — virtually all commentators agree that it could, including the prominent Bigfoot researchers. But many proponents argue that it might have been prohibitively expensive or difficult to create a suit matching the creature in the Patterson film.

    I disagree. Assuming it’s a suit, I see nothing to indicate any special level of sophistication about it. For all we’ve heard about rippling muscles and so on, I must say that’s just not what I see when I look at the film. In my opinion, it looks and behaves like a shaggy suit with some padding — the kind of crude background costume that couldn’t survive a close-up.

  5. Lyndon responds:

    Daniel,

    You are way off beam. The P/G subject isn’t ‘shaggy’. The hair is actually short compared to the ‘typical’ bigfoot costume and it’s body contours are plain to see, again which is unlike other bigfoot costumes. The head is not over large compared to the shoulder width, which is another pointer of a typical bigfoot costume. Every bigfoot costume I have ever seen has a head out of proportion to the rest of the body. The P/G footage doesn’t.

    The P/G subject moves fluidly, comfortably and without even so much as a look down towards it’s pathway as it’s walking. This would be impossible, at least it has proved impossible so far, for anybody in a cumbersome, bulky bigfoot suit wearing fake feet and walking across an uneven dried up river bead to achieve.

    I have seen dozens and dozens of ‘men in bigfoot suits’, whether as a Hollywood costume, commercial, hoax, t.v programme or documentary and NONE of them are consistent with what we see in the P/G footage. I’m a big fan of cheesy old bigfoot movies from the 1970s and 1980s.

    You can go from Boggy Creek to The Six Million Dollar Man, to Snowbeast to Harry and The Hendersons to the X-Creatures and dozens more in between. What they all have in consistency that they do NOT share with the P/G footage is a lack of definition, lack of bulk, too much hair hiding body contours and more importantly the actors in those bigfoot suits do not appear to be comfortable or at ease stomping around in said suits. Many of these men in suits have been shown in more obscure shots and at greater distances than the P/G subject yet it is still easy to establish what they are….men in suits.

    I implore to to watch as many movies and documentaries as you can that show men in bigfoot suits. You will not find any that come anywhere near showing similarities to the subject in the P/G footage. Claims otherwise are just that. Claims. There are no examples to cite.

  6. Lyndon responds:

    DWA wrote;

    The gait is totally unaffected, and easy, under conditions the toughness of which can be unappreciated by people who, I’m sure, haven’t tried it.

    Precisely. This is the point that the suitnicks entirely gloss over, or ignore. The gait is unaffected by the ‘bulky, cumbersome suit’. The gait is unaffected by the ‘huge fake feet’. The gait is unaffected by the uneven dried up river bed the subject is walking along, and not even looking down at.

    It’s not just the ‘look’ of the suit, it’s how the subject moves and carries itself. It’s how at ease and totally comfortable it’s movements are. It looks natural, which of course can not be the case if what we see is just padding and huge fake. How can excessively wide padded shoulders and extra long fake arms swing like that and not look false?

  7. mystery_man responds:

    Lyndon- Well, I am not sure that the ease of the gait is something that “suitniks” ignore exactly. It seems to me that the ease of movement is actually one of the reasons why some skeptics are wary of completely dismissing this film and why the film is still discussed 40 years on. I think the confident gait displayed by the subject of the film rather than being something that is glossed over or ignored, is something that instills that “what if?” feeling in some suit proponents and is a main reason why many are willing to entertain the thought that there is at least a possibility this could be a real creature.

  8. jerrywayne responds:

    I appreciate the eloquently modest views expressed by Daniel Loxton and Mystery Man above.

    I have a couple of questions to address to those that stand pat with the Patterson film.

    What If It IS Fake?

    For the sake of argument: What if the film is conclusively found to be a hoax? (For instance: Gimlin confesses it is a hoax; Patty Patterson brings the “ape suit” down from the attic and presents it to the press; a spot on recreation is made by skeptics; etc.) What, then, would be your heart felt and intellectual reaction?

    Would you be depressed and disappointed? Would you be angry at Patterson? Would you be dismayed and ticked off at advocates such as Sanderson and Green and Meldrum and others who have endorsed the Patterson film? Or would you find it all so funny? Would you kick yourself for being fooled? Laugh at yourself? Salute Patterson for his well made deception? What?

    Or, to flip it around:

    What Is IT?

    For the sake of argument: Let’s pretend the Patterson film is real and not a hoax. What we see is really what Patterson saw and filmed. Now, what did he film. The easy answer is; Bigfoot. But, let’s get beyond preconceptions and answer the question: “what is it?” If you want to say “the Great American Ape”, well, look again. Except for the body hair and certain aspects of the head, there is really nothing about the creature to suggest an ape. It has long legs and is bipedal.
    It has pronounced buttocks that are lacking in most, if not all, ape species. It has a flat stomach, not characteristic of any of the Great Apes. It has large female breasts, characteristic of humans, not apes.

    Remember, the sasquatch, according to the Indian stories I’ve heard, is human. Are we looking at a feral human, a human “throwback”, a modern “caveman”, or what? Just what in the world are we looking at when we see Patterson’s film, if it is not a modern human in a costume?

  9. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    If it’s fake, Patterson – or whoever – is one of the greatest artists of all time. I’d consider a national holiday. You think I’m kidding? This would be one of the most fascinating sagas in American history; I’d consider getting in a long line to buy that book. The reason I think it’s so unlikely that HE did it is the list of people who endorse it. And that no one’s come close to beginning to debunk it. Whoever did this is way beyond good. And it says here: talented way beyond Patterson. It’s just that to presume that Patterson could either enlist such a guy, or get hoaxed by one, piles logistical improbability on improbability.

    All of your concerns about what it is have been responded to, numerous times, and well, by the same folks you list, and others besides. It’s generally accepted now that we humans belong, in evolutionary terms, with the apes. (As the book says: The Third Chimpanzee.) Looked at that way, Patty isn’t some outlandish ape, she’s more of a median ape. She gets more that way when one looks at such as Paranthropus robustus and its australopithecine kin, human ancestors that, if you saw one now, you’d say: upright ape. And again, the book is not closed on whether Gigantopithecus was bipedal, or not.

    As to the Indians: having no cultural experience with any other apes, they used as their comparison point the animal that the sas reminded them of most; the ape they were.

    In short, everything about Patty strongly suggests an ape. That’s why, every time anyone says what bigfoot is, the word “ape” shows up somewhere in there. John Bindernagel’s a wildlife biologist; he’s pointed out that numerous sas encounter reports get very plausible sounding when compared with known behaviors of the extant great apes. He titles his book “North America’s Great Ape: the Sasquatch.” Argue it with him, not me.

  10. Lyndon responds:

    jerrywayne,

    If the P/G footage was ever proven a fake I would be staggered. Like DWA, I would be confused and amazed at why every other bigfoot suit made in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s didn’t employ the brilliant techniques Patterson applied.

    As to what is it if real, well all other apes are not soley bipedal so that’s why they don’t have long legs. They don’t need them. A totally bipedal ape would natutrally have longer legs. It’s functional.

    The pronounced buttocks, again, are a result of a bipedal and erect posture. The reason why humans have them and apes do not is because we are bipedal and erect, whereas apes are not. I see no reason why any upright erect bipedal ape would not have pronounced buttocks like humans do.

    The flat belly would go with it’s (alleged) omniverous, opportunistic diet. Some human’s have pot bellies like apes. Certain African tribes people have large pot bellies mainly because of their intake of certain crops and beer. Most apes have pot bellies because of their vegetation intake. I cannot see sasquatch being a soley vegetarian like most apes. Many chimps don’t have excessive pot bellies and they have a more varied diet.

    As for the breasts, well they do look kind of full but I can’t quite make out exactly what shape they are so I can’t comments firther on that.

    DWA has brought up other points on the evolution of human ancestors.

  11. Daniel Loxton responds:

    If the Patterson film was definitely revealed to be a fake, I’d have very mixed feelings. On the one hand, I’m a journalist for the skeptical press, so that would be an exciting breaking story. Then, everyone likes to have their best analysis confirmed, so I’m sure I’d feel a little satisfaction.

    But I’d also be sad (and perhaps feel a bit silly about that).

    On the other hand, if it was confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt to be genuine, I’d throw a big old party.

  12. jerrywayne responds:

    Magic Act

    I used to accept the Patterson film as legitimate. For years I would occasionally run across the film on TV or in my readings and I would marvel at it with a believer’s heart and a believer’s eyes. Alas, over time I grew more skeptical and began to see flaws in the creature represented and wondered about why the issue had not been laid to rest definitively, in the advocate’s favor, long ago.

    I read Long’s book and it laid the film to rest for me. I was a bit whimsical after concluding, to my own satisfaction, Patterson had “punked” us all. Curiously, I felt as if I had lost a friend in Patterson’s Bigfoot; after all, she had been in my thoughts and dreams for decades. I wasn’t angry with Patterson, but the book presented an elementary investigation which impeached his veracity without doubt, and I did feel disappointed that the earlier investigators, Sanderson and Green, did not do what needed to be done back then to give us a credible account.

    While some folks want to conclude that Patterson must have been part Edison and part Orson Welles to have pulled off such a hoax, I think the truth is much more modest, as truth often is. Patterson’s Bigfoot is like any magic act; folks have a tendency to try to over-explain what they see in a magic act. Almost always, they think the magic act is more complicated than it really is. They overlook the easy explanation and go instead to the complex explanation. Patterson’s Bigfoot was probably a guy in a home made costume, filmed at a distance, with capricious and advantageous lighting; a strolling man on a river bed, dressed in horse hair and a prefabricated gorilla suit, unique to place, time, and circumstance, and made more wondrous than it really is by hearts that want to believe and eyes that want to see.

  13. jerrywayne responds:

    It Is Real, But What Is IT?

    I have given some reasons in posts above why I do not think Patterson’s film is of a real Bigfoot.
    Yet, like other skeptics, I will not rule it out absolutely. For the sake of argument, I have posed the question: if it is real, what is it?

    I was attempting to look at Patterson’s Bigfoot with fresh eyes, to find something new to say about the image. I was trying to reconsider the image.

    DWA- I appreciate your comments. I do have a problem with not distinguishing between apes and humans. I do think some evolutionists talk of such things as “the naked ape” when referring to humans, but I always took that as hyperbole aimed at those who do not accept that we are part of the animal kingdom and believe instead we are set apart from animals (the creationists).

    You suggest everything about “Patty” is apelike. I beg to differ. If you found tracks like those made by Patterson’s Bigfoot (remember, I’m granting you the reality of “Patty” for sake of argument), but you had never heard of Bigfoot as popularly conceived, you would not look at the tracks and think, “my, what large ape tracks out here in the woods.” Instead, you would probably think, “good gravy, that is one big hombre.”

    You suggest that several scientists have answered my concerns. But this seems to me to be an appeal to authority that is at odds with your often stated distrust of scientists. Be that as it may, one of the early advocates, Joseph Wraight, suggested Bigfoot was not implausible because “these creatures are more humanlike than apelike and they apparently migrated here” rather than evolve here.

    Even those who try to link Bigfoot (or other Bigfoot like creatures) to Gigantopithecus admit in their own advocacy that such a link is “utterly hypothetical” (Heuvelmans on Gigantopithecus and the Yeti). I suggest that Bigfoot (and Patterson’s especially) is hard to explain and its professional advocates, such as Krantz and Meldrum, have leapt to the only explanation that they could possibly rationalize as relevant to Bigfoot accounts (Gigantopithecus as Bigfoot). And even if such an explanation is only an “utterly hypothetical” contemplation.

    You suggest the Indian accounts of sasquatch are both real (not mere legend) and mistaken (the Indians believed the apes among them were human). You explain this by evoking the notion that they did not know of apes and pigeon-holed sasquatch as humans. I suggest that perhaps the professional advocates have perhaps pigeon-holed Bigfoot as an evolved ape because they have no clue otherwise as to how to explain the existence of such creatures.

    By the way. If you reread the early accounts of Indians concerning sasquatch, you may be surprised to find that not only did they portray sasquatch as a race or tribe of giant Indians, but they also had encounters with sasquatch where the “apes” used human language.

    Lyndon- Thanks for your comments. It seems that you are unwittingly making a case for Bigfoot as human rather than ape. You make several references to an ape who walks like a man, has buttocks like humans, upright gait like humans, and I presume feet far more resembling a human’s than an ape’s. Why not take the logical step and say that Patterson’s Bigfoot is more humanlike than apelike. And since I am granting the reality of Patterson’s Bigfoot (for sake of argument), what then can we learn from the film that would explicate the creature further if we take that stance?

    What can we discern if we compare Bigfoot to the Yeti? Both large bipedal “apes”, right? Unless, you look at their tracks. One is apelike, but not like any known ape. The other is humanlike, but not like any known human.

    And when we talk of prehistoric “dawn” men, we are not, strictly speaking, talking about apes.

  14. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne: OK, another mental exercise.

    You’re on a planet in a far solar system. You’re a scientist, studying Earth; your specialty is these critters called primates, which contrary to all appearances, actually seem to be related to one another. An associate comes in your office one day and says, there’s another ape up there. You go, no way! There’s a game scientists like to play on your planet, so your associate doesn’t flat out tell you what the ape is like. He gives you two possibilites. (You know about all the nonhuman primates that happen to be recognized on Earth right now.) He gives detailed descriptions of both, and asks you to determine the more plausible of the two.

    One of the possibilities described is homo sapiens; the other is the sasquatch. (And remember: for some reason, your planet knows nothing about homo sapiens. It’s almost like Earth that way.)

    Which do you pick as the more plausible?

    If you want to be seen as not being cuckoo, and don’t want to lose your goshrou;jla (your civilization’s word for “tenure”), you say, of course, the sasquatch. No-brainer.

    Yes. That is how scientists work. Here on Earth too.

    Regardless what you’ve said, scientists commonly recognize man as a primate, and an ape. rbhess went on at some length here about how the sas doesn’t fit any models of what we know to be real. Reason is: we either distort our models, or forget to include ourselves, when it comes to topics like this. Viewed with the full spectrum of possibilities, the sasquatch seems more than plausible. There is no way, knowing nothing about us, that an extraterrestrial observer would consider us a plausible primate, seeing the other ones on offer. But given us, well, the sas appears to fit right in.

    The only problem with the magic act is (1) the “true” explanation is NOT simple and (2) there’s no evidence that anything like it happened. Whatever anyone wants to say about either Patty or the sasquatch in general: to the extent that evidence is available, the evidence points to the reality of the animal.

    But you are right: people tend to get overly complicated when they are trying to explain away things that don’t fit their cherished models. Hence the huge reach that results in Pattyfake.

    That may be why so many confuse me with a proponent. Your posts make it sound as if you were once a true believer who got disillusioned by seeing no proof. That seems to color your view of the evidence. I have never had that problem. As cool as the sas might be only one thing will convince me: evidence.

    I am skeptical of any proposition in a scientific debate – which this clearly is – which is presented to me without evidence.

    So far, that describes Pattyfake. The evidence can’t say Patterson was devious enough or deluded enough or greedy enough to do this. IT HAS TO SHOW HOW HE DID. Because all the other evidence says: he couldn’t.

    Although I agree with mystery_man that Patty appears savaged beyond recovery, I believe that scientists perform a disservice to science when they reject a proposition with much evidence to support it, against which no effective counter has been offered.

    THAT’S when I distrust scientists. When they fail to live up to science.

  15. Ceroill responds:

    I know there have been various experiments proposed on this site. At the risk of annoying some here, I propose one more pipe dream of an experiment.

    This one is about perceptions. Ideally it would have to be done on groups of people, many groups, for a decent sampling. Here’s the basic concept. A group of people is taken camping for a weekend. They will know they will be seeing something, at some point, but not be told what. Some may suspect, that’s in the nature of the human mind.

    At some point of the weekend there will be one of three presences passing by at a distance. A bear, a man in bulky outdoor clothing, or a man in a bigfoot costume. Finally there should be a control element of no encounter at all for some. The assignment of which it is should be random.

    After the weekend the people in the group will file reports on what they saw. After the run of the experiment the results would be compiled, and the range and types of errors noted, as well as the relative accuracy.

    This might be able to demonstrate to what degree a group of varied people would tend to misidentify a bear or a man as a bigfoot, or vice versa.

    The bear of course would need to be a trained one.

    Thoughts?

  16. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I hope you know me well enough to know that I am not rejecting the sasquatch at all, nor even rejecting the PG film as false out of hand. I’m sure you must know my posts and my stance well enough that I hope you are not referring to me when you talk about disservices to science. I try to deal with the whole sasquatch phenomena as scientifically as I possibly can and I think I am extremely open minded for someone in a scientific field. I even go out on a limb enough that I am accused by others who are obviously scientists of some sort of not being very scientific at times. I do like to prod and pry where I may have no business as somewhat of a scientist myself, and often I will bring things up at odds with what others like me may think. However, there is only so far you can go before one starts to run the danger of making too many assumptions and I think this footage has gone as far as it can go. The bottom line is that we do not know if it is real and as such, it will never be fully accepted as the real deal until there is something more to corroborate it. I really feel to base any serious research on this footage would be a dangerous game and could seriously hurt the credibility of any such research.

    Although I tend to be a skeptic, rest assured that the debunker arguments do not answer things for me in a completely satisfactory way and I am nowhere near rejecting sasquatch as a real creature. Unfortunately, I do have to accept the obvious need for more compelling evidence if funding and genuine interest from the scientific community are to get under way. This video unfortunately is not going to do it apparently, and no matter how compelling I may find it, I can see why not. If there is even a chance that it is not real, then any evidence or theory based on it is flawed. This is one reason why reproducible results are required in an experiment, because even the slightest chance that the results were influenced by an unknown factor would render any data gathered useless. No matter that the skeptics cannot reproduce it or explain exactly how it happened, the footage is still effectively an unknown and scientists just cannot do much with that as it stands now. I can appreciate this mode of thinking and I personally do not want to base too much on this video alone. Sasquatch research deserves better.

    As far as this video goes, it is indeed just something to ponder, but as it stands I just think it cannot and should not be embraced fully as a bona fide sasquatch as long as some doubt is there. As far as sasquatch itself goes, I agree that it is not in the best interests of science to fully disregard the possibility. Fortunately, even some of the more hardcore skeptics here do not do that, so what is really needed is new evidence and I mean something that is really going to kick scientific interest into full gear. When that happens, I am sure there are going to be well funded researchers out in force. Please don’t take my skeptical bent as any sort of failure to science. I am approaching this phenomena with an open mind, but at the same time an understanding of what science requires, and my ideas often run quite the balancing act. Hard to stay up on the fence sometimes. 🙂

  17. mystery_man responds:

    Ceroill- Good experiment idea. With some tweaking, it could work and I’d be interested in seeing the results of something like that. Unfortunately there would be no sasquatch to test against, so the results would only realistically show the differences in perception between bears, bulky clothes and a costume. But wouldn’t it be the way of things for a real sasquatch to show up and ruin all of the data? 🙂

  18. Ceroill responds:

    mm- Yeah, that had occurred to me, too. I can just see the cartoon that could be drawn afterwards: The group of experimenters huddled around the campfire while a BF off to the side is thinking, “Ok…now to do my famous ‘bear walk’.”

  19. DWA responds:

    m_m: I know that you know that I know you know I know.

    Etc. 🙂

    If there’s one thing I’ve said over and over here (and believe me there ain’t just one), it’s that one can’t do a search on 40-year-old evidence. Matt Crowley has it just right: it’s fetishizing, not research, and it isn’t moving the field forward.

    And no company of scientists would need to be told about the dangers of taking something on which no consensus can be reached as holotypic in any way.

    My only point is this: with all the hashing over this film has gotten – and no evidence that all the facets of such a fake would have been logistically possible, much less that it was actually done – it is more than worth repeatedly bringing that point up. (218 posts!) At least one young “mainstream” scientist has blogged quite effectively on this point (J. Darren Naish, one of whose blogs Loren featured here, “Frame 352 And All That”). More are entering the field every day. The more enter this discussion, the more are likely not to reject it out of hand, and to say: there’s something to this.

    And compare notes. And look at the rest of the data.

    And maybe, at long last, get us somewhere.

  20. Alexandra responds:

    At the risk of sounding pervy I can tell you something that does not add up, everyone is talking about the breasts being a big thing that makes it real, but it is the reason I think this is fake. In all that swinging did you see the breasts move? They look muscular and static. When Patty swings around to the camera her breasts don’t swing as well. They are placed low on the torso simulating droopage, but for that amount of lowness they are not very droopy they also don’t look like they are make of fat to me. I think after living in the wild bra-less for a few years eventually gravity would stat to take it’s toll. Wow, I must sound like a total creep…. (Most lol)Men don’t have boobs so um yeah maybe less of a feeling of how they act umm… on a normal day to day basis….

    (Wow I have totally embarrassed myself, I wonder if I should even post this…. oh well)

  21. obastide responds:

    I am going to give only one reason why I feel the film is authentic. This has been in the back of my mind for years, and I have never seen anyone else mention it elsewhere, although admittedly, I didnt wade through all of the verbiage above. Take one of the shots of Patty in three quarter profile. Freeze it. Imagine a straight line under her jaw and another imaginary line at a right angle to that extending up so that it just touches the lens of her left eyeball. Extend that line six or eight inches above that. Beyond the supra-orbital browridge, the line hits thin air because there is no skull there. The eyeball would be a fixed point, not something that could be shifted with makeup or a mask. If we were looking at a human in either, we would have forehead at that point above the eyeball and browridge, not thin air resulting from the slope of a sagittal crest.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|Top | FarBar|



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