Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by Assassin32, May 11, 2004.
What evidence would that be?
I side with Kent, it's all bull until it's proven otherwise
Bodies of dead bears are not found in the wild either. And if they exist, the Sasquatch is much rarer than bear.
The thousands of eye witness accounts is part of it. Many of the witnesses are creadible.
There are also thousands of eye witness accounts for the Loch Ness monster, poltergeists and little green men.
Maybe we're talking about different sorts of evidence. I'm sure that eye witness accounts are considered evidence in court, but I prefer evidence that is open to thorough examination, as opposed to "he said so".
But still, do you have any examples of these credible witnesses?
its a smart creature..or whatever it is....it doesnt want to be found
Yes I do. I'll get you some.
And just to be clear, I'm a skeptic. We know there are hoaxes. I'm not talking about just crazy stories. I'm talking about credible witnesses, many who know how to make field identification of wildlife, know what to look for in say a bear (snout, ears). There is also quite a bit of audio evidence. Some scat and hair apparently, and some castings of foot prints and at least one well-known and recent "body" print - the Skookum cast.
I do a lot of field identification of wildlife, I'm an expert birder (North America) for example, so this is more than just an idle interest for me.
Hang on for some of the better evidence, I'll be posting soon.
Since I'm not in the habit of frequenting the habitats of bears I'll have to take your word (although I seriously doubt it is true). I du know people frequently see bear scat in nature though... so... do these bigfeet ever ^_^^_^^_^^_^?
Here is some recent analysis of the Paterson film compared to a recent attempt by the BBC to replicate the film.
By Jeff Meldrum Ph.D.
Associate professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Idaho State University Pocatello, Idaho
It has been obvious to even the casual viewer that the film subject possesses arms that are disproportionately long for its stature.
John Green is a veteran researcher into the question of Sasquatch or Bigfoot. He was among the first to view the film captured by Patterson and Gimlin and has studied it intensely in the intervening years. His recognition of the significance of the unhumanly long arms of the film subject is a point that has not previously been articulated in such a straightforward manner. It is such a fundamental observation that it is considered a breakthrough in assessing the validity of this extraordinary film.
Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM), which is the ratio of combined arm and forearm skeletal length (humerus + radius) to combined thigh and leg skeletal length (femur + tibia) x 100. The human IM averages 72.
The intermembral index is a significant measure of a primate's locomotor adapatation. The forelimb-dominated movements of the chimp and gorilla are reflected in their high IM indices of 106 and 117 respectively.
You are invited to make measurements and IM calculations on your own using frame 72, above.
Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes.
In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing.
Dr. Meldrum is an expert in primate anatomy and locomotion. He recently coedited, From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport.
dude,I soooooo totally understand that,I remember dreaming something like that,and also a dream in which I sat in a boat in the ocean,and a big shadow dived under me,and I saw the shadow but I couldn't hide anywhere for it...
More on this Patterson film controversy:
Q: Why can't it be done? Why can't anyone accurately recreate the "costume" used in the Patterson footage?
A: It's not a man in a costume ...
The image on the right is from a scene in an episode of X-Creatures. X-Creatures was a wildlife documentary series made by the BBC's (British Broadcasting Corporation) Natural History Unit. The episode was filmed around 1995 or later.
The moving footage reveals the movement of massive muscles in the back, and the shoulders and the limbs. These proportions and dynamics, among other things, cannot be simulated by a man in simple padded costume.
In this program the BBC sought to debunk the Patterson footage by recreating the "hoax."
In order to have the most exacting re-enactment possible, the BBC hired the best monster costume designer in Hollywood and even took the costume to the same location where the Patterson incident occurred in Northern California.
How could the BBC have missed the mark so badly with their replica of the Patterson "costume"?
In the Patterson footage, the figure's muscles are flexing noticeably as the figure walks away. To simulate that, the BBC's costume designers in Hollywood had to create a costume that would show the same effect of flexing muscles.
Remote controlled soft-tissue prosthetics were not invented until well after 1967, so they could not be used in an honest replica of a 1967 costume. The costume had to allow the actor's own muscles to flex the outermost surface of the costume.
It was assumed the muscle bulk of the costume could be amplified to match the Patterson creature's muscle bulk, just by fluffing up the fur. There was actually no other choice. There could be no significant padding between the actor's muscles and the fabric to which the fur was attached, without interfering with visibility of the muscles flexing.
Eyewitness sketch of a female sasquatch, showing a musculature and body proportions similar to the Patterson figure. This one was observed for several minutes by hiker William Roe on Mica Mountain in British Columbia, Canada, in 1955. This drawing was made shortly after the 1955 sighting, but was not published until 1968, one year after the Patterson footage was obtained.
The difference of the fur color may not have been so apparent to the designers until they took their costume on location and out into the bright mountain sunlight.
The Patterson figure has a mix of shiny dark fur with reddish auburn undertones. The fur colors and reflectivity change slightly as the fur moves in bright sunlight. The reddish undertones are not very pronounced in the frame 352 image above.
The BBC's costume designers in Hollywood used artificial fur with a reddish tint to simulate the reddish tones seen in the footage. While developing the costume, the chief designer said the Patterson creature's fur looks like "the typical cheap fake fur they used in the '60's." So that's what he used.
The images above show how that "typical fake fur from the 60's" doesn't create the same kind of reflective sheen, or change color much as the fur moves in the sunlight.
The side by side images above reveal striking difference in the muscle proportions of the two figures. The muscles on the Patterson figure are more than twice the size of the human's muscles in many places. These muscles flex as the figure walks, so they are not made of padding.
The Patterson figure's skeletal proportions can now be measured by computer. Positions of the joints can be determined from the rotation of the joints, and then modeled into a moving 3D skeletal frame. Although on the surface the Patterson figure looks more or less human in terms of the skeletal proportions, computer modeling demonstrates that the figure has a non-human frame.
Bigfoot exists! I remember all the proof that was all over TV during the 80s.
About the Patterson film, and supposed analysis of said film.
Last time I saw this film I was too young to really give damn, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to make any anatomical analysis of this figure without also knowing the exact angles the film was taken at, and at that... being an expert at how the angle of the shot influences the look of anatomical structure.
I also find it kind of curious that Patterson went out with the express intent of getting a bigfoot on camera, and that Ray Wallace (well known, and self confessed bigfoot hoaxer) was the one to tip Patterson off on where to find the bigfoot is even more curious...
Fiction. It's more boring that way, but nothing convinces me otherwise.
Didn't they come out recently saying the Patterson film was a hoax? Pretty sure. to lazy to google news it.
who in the blue hell cares about bigfoot?
if he was a wookie...
Patterson's family did after he died last year. Showed the footprints they used, costume, etc. It was a hoax. 100%
Sorry, it was Wallace, the guy who wore the suit who died last year. Patterson died in 1972
Whoever owns that car has a very small penis...maybe a vagina.
I thought this footage was pulled from the film made in the 1990s?
Does anybody know about the 90s footage?
Whoa... you jump to conclusions too quickly.
Everybody knows Wallace was a hoaxer. He also liked to claim more that what he was responsible for. The notion that the whole of the complex of sasquatch mythology is all due to Wallace is simply unsustainable. We have accounts that go back thousands of years into native American oral tradition for just one example.
The Wallace story was largely the media once again sensationalizing something to the point where the truth gets glossed over.
TT, the Patterson footage was a hoax.
Didn't he die recently and admit it on his death bed?
I believe I heard that on the news.
No he didn't. You are giving a good example of what I mean by the media being misleading. Go back and look at the post you just quoted and then look at my previous post.
The bit about Wallace and Patterson making up the whole of the "bigfoot" or better term, sasquatch, complex is false.
Wallace Hoax Behind Bigfoot?
Wallace Scam Ensnares Hollywood Producers
BFRO's Quick FAQ on the 'Death of Bigfoot' Story
More Commentary on the 'Death of Bigfoot' Story
Samples of other Wallace Claims
John Green on the 'Birth of Bigfoot' at Bluff Creek.
Wallace Scam Ensnares Hollywood Producers
Some folks in Hollywood apparently didn't get the memo, or didn't get it in time. Months after the Wallace family's bogus story about their deceased, veracity-challenged father, was thoroughly scientifically debunked by Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University, and Canadian journalist John Green, a newly formed production company in Hollywood has announced plans to produce a "documentary" based on the discredited Wallace story (see article from the Hollywood Reporter, below).
Someone needs to send another memo to actor Judge Reinhold and producer Eric Geadelmann, before they make fools of themselves:
1) The Wallace story has been debunked, scientifically. It was a lie. The wooden track stompers shown to the media by the Wallace family do not match photos of the 1958 tracks they claim their father made. They are different foot shapes. See for yourself.
2) It is not physically possible to fake tracks with the shape, depth and stride of the Bluff Creek tracks, using any kind of wooden track stompers. Go ahead and try it sometime. Stompers large enough to produce the tracks cast in 1958 act like snowshoes in soft soil. They cannot create the heavy compression seen in the 1958 casts.
3) John Green has offered $100,000 dollars to anyone who can recreate the tracks the Wallaces claim their deceased father created. The Wallace family can't do it. One of the Wallace family members nearly killed himself trying to do it, as he was towed behind a pickup truck while wearing the wooden stompers, in front of media cameras.
4) The Wallace family waited for their father to die before propagating their bogus story, because Wallace himself would have been easily discredited upon cross examination by those who could prove he didn't know the key details about the tracks found by Jerry Crew.
5) Scientific luminaries such as Jane Goodall and George Schaller have recently become vocal advocates for the authenticity of the real evidence indicating the existence of these animals.
6) This is a very serious environmental issue. Television programs and films that mislead the public about it will eventually be viewed as something between distasteful and criminal exploitation of popular misconceptions, as more evidence and scientific support accumulates to show that the species exists, and is likely endangered.
Is this how you'd like to be remembered? If you have any moral fiber at all you'll think about this. Don't cop out by calling it entertainment. The ignorant attitudes you're encouraging will affect public policy in a lot of areas, policies that directly affect the habitats of this rare, important primate species.
From the Hollywood Reporter
Reinholds put their Bigfoot forward in venture
By Chris Gardner, Reuters
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Actor Judge Reinhold and his wife, Amy, have teamed with indie producer Eric Geadelmann to launch a feature film production company.
TLP Prods., which will maintain offices in Los Angeles and Nashville, has acquired two narrative fiction projects and started production on a documentary.
TLP has acquired the rights to the life story of Ray Wallace, a logger in the Pacific Northwest who is credited with creating the myth of Bigfoot by using a pair of 16-foot carved wooden feet and stomping around on the ground. He kept the legend going for more than 40 years by using photos, footprints and fake sightings before his family admitted the long-running hoax shortly after his death in November 2002.
The Reinholds, Geadelmann and manager-producer Gordon Gilbertson will produce the untitled Bigfoot-hoax project, with Judge Reinhold expected to take a supporting role in the film.
"Initially, this was just a funny headline in the New York Times, but the more we learned about Ray and the ingenious ways he captured people's imagination and manipulated mass media, we knew we had to tell his story," Judge Reinhold said. "It's Ray's young son's discovery that his father is Bigfoot, set against the mystery and enchantment of the Northwest woods."
TLP's other fiction film project is "One Stupid Thing," a black comedy penned by John Lavachielli about a New Jersey man who moves his family to the small town of Nyborg, Wyo., to protect them from impending terrorism. Justine Baddeley is producing in association with TLP. CAA is packaging both projects.
TLP has started production on the feature docu "Ghosts in the Hills" in Arkansas. The film tells the story of a white community at a historic crossroads because of the Ku Klux Klan.
Geadelmann also is a partner in Haynes/Geadelmann Pictures, an independent film production outfit that recently announced a multiple-project deal with Nicolas Cage and his Saturn Films.
Judge Reinhold was last seen on the big screen in last year's "Santa Clause 2." Upcoming film projects for the actor include "The Hollow" and "Crab Orchard."
Much more here: http://www.bfro.net/news/Wallace.asp