• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Those guys talk strangely :) "A quasi spiritual creature is big time bubba!". I do however wonder why when I reached the point on their webpage that says "Houston we have a problem" my computer almost crashed :)
 
Xanatic, with all due respect to the folks who created that fun website...I don't think you missed much. They claim to see half a dozen or more OTHER Sasquatches in the Patterson film.

There is another website - the name of which I cannot recall, unfortunately - that plays much the same game with other footage (although that website did NOT claim Bigfoot was some kind of multi-creature collective!)... that is, every blur, blob, shadow, and trick of light is yet ANOTHER Bigfoot. It is a bit sad really, assuming these folks are sincere - to want to see something so much that.

I daresay that I could go to my local woods... a long long long way from the haunt of any Bigfoot I have ever heard of! :D ... snap a picture of a sun-dappled stand of trees, and these folks would be able to find a good half-dozen Sasquatches peeking from the amorphous shadows. Did none of these folks ever look at the clouds as kids, and "see" all the neat creatures/objects "hidden" there? (I should clam up before they start a Sky-Sculptors website dedicated to the alien artists sculpting our clouds as a means of passing secret messages of the coming environmental apocalypse.... ;) ).

Shadow
 
That site reminded me of those "ghost hunting" sites where every reflection, every printing error, every lens flare is an "orb" or "spirit." When you want to see something, you'll see it.

What struck me about this site is that they have the clearest version of the Patterson film I have ever seen in my life, and it's like it's not good enough for them. They have to find fifty Bigfoots hiding in the trees, headless, armless, faces without bodies, etc. I just want to point at the HUGE SHAMBLING APE-MAN right in the middle of the scan and say "LOOK! THAT'S IT!" It's like a "Where's Waldo" book where Waldo is obviously right there in the middle of the page but they keep looking, "Hey, there's another Waldo over here! He's blurry and has no legs, but look!"
 
Bigfoot babies

i was searching webpages again and came accross a picture that claims to show that there are baby bigfeet in the Patterson footage.

click here to see it

i must admit it just looks as tho they have ringed anything that is dark but there is a blown up picture of one of these blotches on the site that does ressemble a baby big foot but it could just be coincidence.

What u think?

blown up baby big foot in the background

another blown up baby in the background

babys in the bush

also this pic claims that the bigfoot in the footage had a baby on her back! click below to see

picture of bigfoot with baby on her back
 
This is from Beckjord's site?

Looks like clutching at straws to me. Besides, how many baby bigfeet can one mama support? And how come none of them move through the duration of the film?
 
I've read several reports where witnesses have reported a juvenile or baby bigfoot. I'm unaware though of any photographic evidance supporting this.

As for the circled sections of the Patterson film, you could just as easily say those dark splotches were Elvis. I've seen much better examples of simulacra.
 
I love that site for the CRYSTAL CLEAR scan of the Patterson footage. I assumed it was fake until I saw that.

I dislike it for its absurdity. They look for "babies" in the background and seem not to notice the ENORMOUS HAIRY HUMANOID in the middle of the film. When you get to the part about the "baboon head" on the side fo Bigfoot's head and they start talking about how he's a shape shifter, you'll come to the conclusion (like I did) that you should pretty much discard any English sentences on their site and look at the pretty pictures instead.
 
i think you guys are right, the only good thing this site has is the clear picture of the bigfoot. The babies in the background just look like dark blotches to me and as Bitter Monks said they are just as likely to be Elvis than bigfeet.
It is a pity tho this evidence isnt more believable as i think it would of smashed the whole is it real or not case wide open.
 
If Bigfoot exists, there must be baby bigfeet. But the 'babies' in this picture are IMO just wishful thinking. I couldn't make out anything at all in the ringed sections, although I did see a hobbit peeking out from the bushes.

Carole
 
Just highlights the difficulty of photography in low light conditions,with a chance encounter.
 
Bigfoot video

Bigfoot video makes true believers mad
Jay Ingram

Anybody who's even mildly interested in things paranormal will know that when it comes to Bigfoot (a.k.a. Sasquatch) one of the most interesting pieces of evidence is a film made in California in 1967 by two Sasquatch "hunters," Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. I've just been involved in a "remake" of that film, with curious results.

The Patterson-Gimlin film shows what appears to be a large ape-like creature striding across a dry creek bed and eventually disappearing into the woods, although not before glancing back at the camera. I attended a conference in the late 1970s where anthropologists, Bigfoot hunters and all manner of skeptics and believers ran and re-ran the film, teasing out one subtle detail after another to confirm or deny that this was a real animal and not a guy in a well-crafted gorilla suit. ...

…The reaction was spectacular. Our video immediately made it onto the Fortean Times Web site — the "Journal of Strange Phenomena" — where it played without comment. Not so on the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization site, where it was called "Stupid Hoax Video."...

…The video was a Rorschach test for anyone involved in the Bigfoot phenomenon, a change to let one's inner demons out, and psychologists would be delighted with the array of responses it generated.

In science, evidence shapes beliefs. But with fringe phenomena, it's the other way around.

The above is from a Canadian paper. If you want toread the article (it was too long to post!), here is the
link
 
New hunt for Bigfoot in Wisconsin

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/3799904.htm

NORTHWESTERN WISCONSIN: Search is on for bigfoot
BY KEVIN HARTER
Pioneer Press

Dennis Murphy of Plymouth is a hunter.

Over the years, armed with a camera and a supply of plaster of Paris, Murphy has hit the woods of northwestern Wisconsin in search of a creature so rare that no one has ever bagged one: Bigfoot. Sasquatch. Yeti. Or as the Ojibwe call him, Bug-way'-jinini, the wildman.

Murphy, 54, said he first encountered two aging bigfoots while searching for a fishing spot 30 years ago. He mostly kept the sighting to himself, fearing he would be ridiculed.

He still tracks the elusive creature and believes he captured its image on film during a recent foray into the woods near Danbury. He said he didn't see the creature but found its image when he had his film developed after his return.

Murphy isn't alone in his pursuit of the creature. And he is far from the only person to claim a sighting.

Ten years ago, funded by a $1 million grant from a benefactor who wished to remain anonymous, the Big Foot Research Project was launched, using up-to-date technology, including military search equipment.

According to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, there are between 2,000 and 6,000 bigfoots living in North America. And while the Pacific Northwest gets a lot of attention, there are many other prime homelands, including the Upper Midwest.

John Bindernagel, a British Columbia-based wildlife biologist, agrees on both counts.

"It's been treated as a joke or a hoax, but increasingly there is serious study," said Bindernagel, who has a Ph.D. in veterinary science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Bindernagel, who is writing a book on bigfoot, said sasquatch is most often reduced to native folklore or regional myth, but he believes it exists.

While there have been hoaxes and practical jokers, Bindernagel said there is also credible evidence, including the footprints he has found.

But until more people overcome their fear of ridicule and report what they see, sightings won't be taken seriously.

According to Bindernagel and others, bigfoot tends to live where there is water and wooded high grounds. Based on eyewitness accounts and footprint casts, bigfoot, is, well, big, standing up to 10 feet tall and weighing more than 800 pounds. At times, reports say, the creature can be rather pungent. Put those characteristics together, and it would seem that bigfoot would have a difficult time playing hide from the seekers.

Not so, said Murphy and others. Bigfoot is shy, smart and nocturnal, thus the creature is good at avoiding us.

Murphy did not want to disclose the exact location of his sighting three decades ago, fearing others would come looking. For bait, he said he prefers apples and a few bananas.

"It was unbelievable, an eye-opening experience," he said of that first sighting. "They were old. They were pure white. He was 9 feet tall."

Murphy said he was sane and sober when he saw them and remained so earlier this summer when, with renewed interest, he began searching for bigfoot in the oak and jack pine forests around Danbury.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources officials remain unconvinced that there is a huge, undiscovered mammal stalking the north woods.

"We've not had anyone, to the best of my recollection, claim to have seen bigfoot," said Jim Bishop, public affairs officer for the Wisconsin DNR's northern region.

There is a large bear population in the area, he said, and bears can weigh in at more than 500 pounds.

"It could be a bear track," Bishop said of footprint evidence collected by bigfoot hunters. "A bear track can look very much like a human footprint."

Murphy, who has a plaster of Paris cast of a 17-inch footprint, said it was not made by a bear. Skeptics, he said, tend to dismiss bigfoot sightings as large bears.

While he didn't see the creature this summer, the footprints and the sounds he heard from the woods reassured him that bigfoot is real.

"I heard him following me. And I heard what sounded like a horse whinnying. I wasn't afraid. This is not a creature to be afraid of," he said. "With all the changes and all the growth, I was very happy to realize they were still out there and not extinct."

Since April, Murphy has ventured out about 20 times in search of bigfoot. He remains confident and optimistic.

"The anticipation is always there," he said. "I think I can find this creature."

REPORTED BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS

Washington state: 253

California: 194

Oregon: 111

Minnesota: 17. The majority of Minnesota's sightings, seven, have taken place in St. Louis County, the state's largest in area.

Wisconsin: 15. No county has more than two sightings. Wisconsin sightings over the years have included that of a Polk County man, who in 1974 claimed to have seen bigfoot piloting a UFO.

Source: The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

TO LEARN MORE

On the Web: Weird Wisconsin, which includes links to stories on Bigfoot and UFOs, can be found at http://www.weird-wi.com. The W-Files, which covers similar territory, is at http://www.w-files.com. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization is at http://www.bfro.net.

On TV: "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," is scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel this winter. The film, which is being produced by Minnesotan Doug Hajicek, includes analysis of possible bigfoot audio evidence by a Texas A&M physics professor and the director of the university's Center for Bioacoustics.

Classic footage: The 1967 16mm film shot by rodeo cowboy Roger Patterson and bigfoot tracker Robert Gimlin near Bluff Creek, Calif., continues to inspire believers. But detractors say the film is nothing more than shaky footage of a man in a monkey suit.
 
Patterson Film/Recent Hoax Claims

Seems like recently there was (yet) another attempt by debunkers to put the kabosh on the Paterson film.

In essense, they claimed it was the work of an award winning make-up artist who did it as a gag, and that this is "common knowlege" in film circles.

Has anybody disproven this latest assault, and/or is it the concensus now that it was fakes, or do people view it as real here?

I tend to go on the idea that it is real, because the suit, as represented on the film, looks much better than anything in Planet of the Apes, which was filmmed with a huge buget and the best make-up availible, and was shot around the same time.
 
No names, addresses or telephone numbers, I take it? Who was making this claim?

As always, it seems to depend on whose assertions you believe.
 
The big difference between the Patterson film and Planet of the Apes though, is that the former is (deliberately?) grainy and shot from some distance, thus obscuring any details in the 'ape-suit' that might give the game away. POTA obviously features many close-up shots and was filmed with much higher quality cameras and film. So it's not quite right to compare the two, really.

Basically, if you film something like that and obscure the image enough to let people's imaginations come into play, then you don't have to rely on state of the art special effects and costumes and make up.

Just some thoughts. I can't actually recall seeing the film, only stills, and I don't have any strong belief or disbelief in it's authenticity.
 
August Verango said:
The big difference between the Patterson film and Planet of the Apes though, is that the former is (deliberately?) grainy and shot from some distance, thus obscuring any details in the 'ape-suit' that might give the game away.

Sceptics also complain that the camera's shaking too hard, with only one "money shot," as the creature looks back at the camera.

It's hard to call the Patterson film "intentionally" grainy, as it was shot on 8 (possibly Super 8) millimeter--the most common home movie film available. The cameras were small and portable, and the picture quality on the grainy side.

I saw a documentary on the Patterson film once, and the crew went to the location of the original encounter. Turns out the distance between Patterson and "bigfoot" was uncomfortably close. I don't remember exactly, but perhaps not more than 50 feet.

So, if it was a real animal, no wonder the camera's shaking! I, for one, would have been touching cloth (to borrow your charming colloquialism). :D
 
From what I can see

Good points, really.

However, even with the graininess, there are two points that seem to point to it not being a hoax, for me at least.

You can tell there is a point to the top of the head, consistent with the bony ridged that support the jawline of the larger apes. This feature is noticibly absent in the makup on PoTA (great film, BTW).

The other point is the bigfoot's breasts. What a weird, weird detail to add to the costume if you were creating a hoax. There would be no reason I could think of, if you were going to create a costume, to create fake breasts as well.

Here's a page I found online with close pictures:

http://www.c-gate.net/~jmichael/mk/
 
The parascope article is really along the lines of "Tom said that Dick said that Harry said that Bill might have done it..."

It's all speculation and circumstantial evidence - "so-and-so was making monkey suits, so he could have done it".

The idea that 'this is "common knowlege" in film circles' seems on this evidence to be more like a typical FOAF tale!


EDIT: I've now merged this thread with an earlier one which turned out to be a one post wonder!

Scroll to the top of this page to read the earlier post.
 
rynner said:
The idea that 'this is "common knowlege" in film circles' seems on this evidence to be more like a typical FOAF tale!

I do remember there was a very forceful effort to get
John Chambers, the makeup artist in question, to confess
before he died. Either Chambers did it, and was sorry,
or didn't make the costume and milked the publicity
to further his career.

The man was brilliant, without a doubt,
(I think he even created the Chewbacca suit) but having
credit for something as astounding (at the time)
as the Patterson film was worth its weight in gold around Hollywood. To this day, director John Landis will first say that Chambers confessed to him that he created the suit, and in the next interview Landis will clearly say Chambers DIDN'T do it.

Here we sit discussing it 5 or so years AFTER Chamber's death...
I guess the publicity machine really works! ;)

TVgeek
 
It's good

I'm glad to see that in general people are still into the Patterson film.

Just look at the detail inherent in the construction of the face in close-ups, and you see something that would have to be applied make-up, and extensive - it's no pull over mask, to be sure.

When you see it in motion, the way the skin moves with the hairs on the thigh is really convincing.

Makes you wonder if this footage ifluenced Robert Crumb on his strip when Whiteman is abducted by the Bigfoot woman.
 
bigfoot real!?

hey last night on the Art Bell show hosted by guest host George N. the first hour guest was "the croc hunter guy" George ask him if he believed in bigfoots reality etc.. and the croc man said..:" Ive ad a bit of a luk me self and turn up nothing..and I really had a go at it I'll tell you ,so Im a bit sceptical George". Pretty neat interview,anybody catch it. He basically added also that theres little chance of a real live bigfoot speices out there hiding from him. bye..ruffready
 
I always thought it unfortunate that the film was shot in "Bluff CreeK"as if to emphasise its a clever hoax.Apparently the film shows a completely different situation when shown in a different film speed(Seemingly its not clear as to what speed it was originally shot in).On balance having studied this particular case I would put it in the category of "unexplained"and defer to the scientist in Germany who having made exhaustive studies of the whole thing(including visiting the scene)stated that"if it is a hoax,it is an extremely clever one".
 
I remember a BBC programme a couple of years back where The Really Wild Show's Chris Packham (??) did a bit of investigative research into Bigfoot and the film. He managed to talk to one of the two surviving people (can't recall if it was Patterson or Gimlin) and the guy conceded that it was possible that his dead chum did fake it.
So, Packham and his friend interpreted "could have faked it" to mean "definitely did fake it". Mind you, thats what I have come to expect of the BBC after their atrocious Spontaneous Human Combustion and other paranormal programmes.
 
DPL said:
I remember a BBC programme a couple of years back where The Really Wild Show's Chris Packham (??) did a bit of investigative research into Bigfoot and the film.....So, Packham and his friend interpreted "could have faked it" to mean "definitely did fake it".

I saw this one: Packham concluded that Bigfeet couldn't exist as there was not enough food available to support an animal of that purported size (!). Not a mention of how Grizzlies, Moose, etc, survive given that they're in the same weight range or heavier.

The Yeti episode was even more pompous: effectively "I didn't see it, so it isn't there".

That having been said, the first thing I ever saw about Bigfoot was "The World About Us" on BBC2 when I was about six (so about thirty odd years ago): I saw a repeat some years later and it was utterly non-biased one way or another. And that programme kick started my entire interest in Cryptozoology, so don't knock the Beeb too hard.

Stu
 
Bigfoot!!

The film speed thing - some experts in human motion feel that, depending on if the film was shot at 18fps (frames per second) or 24 fps combined with the stride and spacing between footprints would prove if the film was fake or genuine.

I thibnk the best argument against bigfoot (which I discount) is the idea that there isn't a large enough breeding population to keep it a thriving species since they are so seldom seen.

Also - if there is a stag film that even half-way resembles the Patterson film - count me out - WAY OUT!!:p
 
Oh I dunno about it all still - Bluff Creek seems like too much of a pun to me...
 
Bigfoot flim/creature real?

I 'm going to go with the crocodile hunter guys assesment." If I can't find it, It ain't there". (he said a good chance it ain't there) You know for all the info over the years I've heard an seen on these creatures, It would seem something would be found to blow us all away, like that one in sumatra," the orang Pednid".(i'm winging it here, forgive spelling) That creature has had some real big attention from really:" Hip", scientist.but to no- avail, "Nothing ,just some really great accounts (which i like to read,like forteantimes) to share...ruff!!!
 
Re: Bigfoot!!

Mr. R.I.N.G. said:
The film speed thing - some experts in human motion feel that, depending on if the film was shot at 18fps (frames per second) or 24 fps combined with the stride and spacing between footprints would prove if the film was fake or genuine.

I thibnk the best argument against bigfoot (which I discount) is the idea that there isn't a large enough breeding population to keep it a thriving species since they are so seldom seen.

Also - if there is a stag film that even half-way resembles the Patterson film - count me out - WAY OUT!!:p

Patterson says that he normally filmed at 24fps, but discovered after he had made the film that it was set to 18fps - he said that he can only think that he accidently changed the setting to 18fps whilst hurridly grabbinbg the camera.

However..... the particular model of Kodak camera didn't have an 18fps setting, it had 16fps and 24fps.

When the BBC did some experiments a few years ago, they discovered that a knock to the camera and the differences in types of film could make the camera run faster - in their experiments, they had the camera set to 16fps, but the film actually ran at 19fps.

I think it is safe to assume that patterson actually had the camera on 16fps, and read it as 18fps - an easy mistake to make if the rented camera had had a few knocks in the past.

Similarly, the camera could well have been running at nearer the 18-19fps.

as a result, when shown on television, the film actually runs fast, giving an unusual look to the whole thing.

Paul
 
A tad off topic I s'pose but these creatures are supposed to be hairy. Hair falls off things all the time and gets droped, caught on branches etc etc.

Has there ever been BF hair found and if so surely a DNA test will reveal if it belongs to a known species.

also surely they have to take a Dump from time to time - that would be interesting evidence.

If you see one or find footprints FFS look for hair and poo.
 
Back
Top