A
Anonymous
Guest
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
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.
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.
rynner said:The idea that 'this is "common knowlege" in film circles' seems on this evidence to be more like a typical FOAF tale!
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".
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!!