patterson gimlin film

[kensei]

110% faked.

Sasquatch flies in the face of what we know about primate evolution (which is quite a lot because it's a modern event with lots of fossil evidence). For example, lets look at a population of endangered primate species that are quite large and homonoid looking - the Gorrilla. To exist it requires that there is a population of them. Females never leave the 'tribe'. Male primates do that. So anything big, primate, looking female and on its own is a dead giveaway that this is not natural primate behaviour. Its the sort of a behaviour some cowboys might get up to in a monkey suite though. Basically if you found sasquatch you would be finding a whole population of them, especially if you where looking at a female. So not only is the Patterson Footage completely at odds with evolutionary biology, it is completely at odds with primate behaviour. So that's the logical problem I have with what I am seeing.

As for things up with the video. You can actually see the large holes cut out for the eyes on blow ups. I think thats a dead giveaway. Primates dont show that on blow ups. Not even like shadows. Its holes in a mask.

Then we have the problem that humans have been able to recreate the patterson footage by putting other humans in a suite.

Just look up the name - Bob Heironimus. I think that name alone is enough to end speculation over how legit sasquatch is in this footage.

Hi Batman, been trading some views with you in the paranormal thread and it seems to be another debate where neither side will be swayed. I knew I'd have to get around to addressing you here though because the Bigfoot subject is very close to my heart, though it is also one where neither side will be swayed. But you are named after my favorite superhero, so...

I think you are making some big assumptions. You assume that the Bigfoot species must conform to all the lifestyle habits seen in other large primates when exceptions to rules do happen in science from time to time, and even if the rules were hard and fast in all cases you assume that there weren't other Bigfoots concealed very nearby that the men just didn't see. I'm not insisting there were, it's just a possibility that the film subject met up with others of her kind within seconds of going off camera. There have been several sightings of family groups, females carrying babies, etc. so I admit you do have a point about them living at least to some degree like other primates. The first Bigfoot case I personally investigated in fact ended up with three sets of tracks in one small area ranging in size from 20" long to just 12, which I took to be a possible family group.

Your comments on the face looking like a mask are your interpretation that has not been shared by all, on a face that loses visual quality the more it is enlarged.

Reproducing the Patterson footage by putting humans in a suit- not reproducing it exactly, no. Of course people can make a suit and shoot film of it and say there, that's the same, but it's not. It will always be debated whether the proportions of the film creature could be human or not, and at first and even second glance many would say they obviously are simply because they're looking at an erect biped. But the differences that have been shown in computer analysis are very subtle- they show that no human could fit into the suit and still show such a free range of motion. If the upper body fits the lower doesn't quite, and vice versa. I know you will never agree.

And Bob Heironimus has already been mentioned in this thread. I've known of him for some years. He is not a smoking gun. He's never produced the suit, he's not the only person ever alleged to have been wearing said suit, and there have been times he's been unable to do such things as accurately give directions to the film site and he gets away with it by just saying it's been a long time and his memory isn't perfect. He is taken to be the man in the suit for one reason- because he and a few others around him SAY he was. He is a prime example of anecdotal evidence, which Bigfoot scoffers always say is worthless when it comes from Bigfoot witnesses.

[Batman]

All a bigfoot hunter needs to do is call a university to come down to check the tracks. If they don't you can do casts and scoop up the earth for DNA testing. It must leave behind DNA. Yet no one has ever been able to find unknown or DNA that would resemble what primates have. Nothing. Yet if you did you would have the best evidence next to the thing itself.

BTW - Bob passed a polygraph. So its not just anecdotal. Also Bob's walk matched exactly. On YouTube.

I find it extremely far fetched to believe a highly valued female would be left alone especially with cowboys on horses about. The alpha male would be creating havok on the scene.

[TomTomKent]

All a bigfoot hunter needs to do is call a university to come down to check the tracks. If they don't you can do casts and scoop up the earth for DNA testing. It must leave behind DNA. Yet no one has ever been able to find unknown or DNA that would resemble what primates have. Nothing. Yet if you did you would have the best evidence next to the thing itself.

BTW - Bob passed a polygraph. So its not just anecdotal. Also Bob's walk matched exactly. On YouTube.

I find it extremely far fetched to believe a highly valued female would be left alone especially with cowboys on horses about. The alpha male would be creating havok on the scene.

It's a balance of probability.

Guys cashing cheques to make a film with a fake bigfoot show us a clip.

We can compare the probability of a man for whom there is some evidence for working on the staged documentary claiming he wore the suit in that particular shot.

We can consider the probability of people who provide creature suits claiming to recognise their own suit.

Or we can believe that a species unknown to science, whose heel is flopping about, happening to march on by. Sounds a simple truth, that coild cut with occams razor, but it requires too many caveats to also be true for it to be possible or probable.

[Batman]

There is no evidence of primates evolving in the Americas. Homo Sapien arrived in America because their brain capacity had evolved enough for them to undertake long journeys.

Giant apes are Asian and long since extinct. They didn't travel from Asia.

[GUT]

All a bigfoot hunter needs to do is call a university to come down to check the tracks. If they don't you can do casts and scoop up the earth for DNA testing. It must leave behind DNA. Yet no one has ever been able to find unknown or DNA that would resemble what primates have. Nothing. Yet if you did you would have the best evidence next to the thing itself.

BTW - Bob passed a polygraph. So its not just anecdotal. Also Bob's walk matched exactly. On YouTube.

I find it extremely far fetched to believe a highly valued female would be left alone especially with cowboys on horses about. The alpha male would be creating havok on the scene.

Passing a polygraph really doesn't prove much though.

[Jonathan H]

Mysteries of the Gods!

That's true, but it doesn't much help the Bigfoot believers' cause neither.

If you are on the other side of the fence, so to speak, and you want to just enjoy junk culture by being 12 years old again, then the following is the purest candy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnUy-naD0Yw

Even if you just watch from 1:09:13, I guarantee you will laugh out loud!

[kensei]

All a bigfoot hunter needs to do is call a university to come down to check the tracks. If they don't you can do casts and scoop up the earth for DNA testing. It must leave behind DNA. Yet no one has ever been able to find unknown or DNA that would resemble what primates have. Nothing. Yet if you did you would have the best evidence next to the thing itself.

BTW - Bob passed a polygraph. So its not just anecdotal. Also Bob's walk matched exactly. On YouTube.

I find it extremely far fetched to believe a highly valued female would be left alone especially with cowboys on horses about. The alpha male would be creating havok on the scene.

Your first point- Patterson DID call a university in British Columbia where he had contacts and asked them to bring a tracking dog. That ended up not working out, but he couldn't have known that it wouldn't. And on DNA, if you'd delve into the subject deeply enough you'd find that there have indeed been cases in which people have collected samples that have yielded DNA that turn out to be of a higher primate but not matching any known higher primate, thus labeled "inconclusive."

Your second point- I used to have a friend who was a pathological liar. Among many other outrageous things she pretended to have cancer, staged a pregnancy hoax and the miscarriage of triplets that never existed, and swore she was innocent when she was charged with embezzling several thousand dollars from a law firm she worked for as a secretary. She was polygraphed on the latter point, and she passed it. So forgive me if I don't have complete faith in those devices. (Btw she was convicted anyway.)

Your third point- You're still taking it as a given that everything that holds true for a troup of gorillas would have to also apply to Bigfoot, and while I've agreed that there might be some similarities that is still a big leap. They are not gorillas, they are an uncataloged species. We can't know everything about their nature based on other species.

[kensei]

There is no evidence of primates evolving in the Americas. Homo Sapien arrived in America because their brain capacity had evolved enough for them to undertake long journeys.

Giant apes are Asian and long since extinct. They didn't travel from Asia.

With respect, firmly held scientific theories do not always turn out to be correct in the long run. In 1821 an eminent zoologist of his day, Georges Cuvier, made what is today known as his "rash dictum"- a declaration that it was highly unlikely that there were any more large animals on Earth to be discovered. The list of those that have been since then is long. That was a big "oops" for Cuvier.

It was also once considered silly to believe that rocks could fall out of the sky. I'm just saying that scientific theory needs to be open to change.

[kensei]

Some further thoughts on the points I've just made.

If anyone asks me for examples of DNA studies, there have been some rather highly publiciczed studies in the news just recently that have admittedly not gone in the pro-Bigfoot camps's favor, but I'm talking about older cases. One was in Colorado in the late 1980s when Bigfoot sightings were going on around Pike's Peak. A large animal tried to break into a cabin and left hair snagged in a damaged screen door. The hair was analyzed by Dr. Jerold Lowenstein of the University of California San Francisco, who found that it was a match for a higher primate, and the only higher primates he was not able to eliminate were human and chimpanzee, the two most advanced known primates. One could always say it was a human that tried to break into the cabin, but the attack happened in the winter when a human would have been swathed in warm clothes and unlikely to leave significant hair behind. There have been other such DNA cases with similar results, including one I remember (but don't have the details close at hand) involving a Bigfoot that broke a window on a house and left blood on the glass.

Another thought on polygraphs- there have also been Bigfoot witnesses who have passed them about their sightings, and whenever that happens is of course when skeptics agree that the devices cannot be 100% relied upon. An example was featured in the late 1970s documentary film "The Mysterious Monsters" when a Native American named John Green (no relation to the famous Canadian sasquatch researcher of the same name) was polygraphed on an incident in which he was fishing and a Bigfoot grabbed his net to steal fish. He passed. If Heironimus' test is to be relied upon, then so must Green's.

I'd also like to repeat what I said earlier in the thread about how I am not just a believer but a knower since I have seen one of these creatures myself, and that high profile cases (like the Patterson film, the biggest of all) have very little to do with establishing whether or not Bigfoot simply exists. Many skeptics have a working knowledge of the subject that consists only of those high profile cases and are unfamiliar with where the greatest evidence lies- the hundreds of low profile witnesses year after year who continue to have good sightings

And I'd just like to mention that I will not debate Jonathan H anymore, not because of any of his beliefs but because instead of civil debate he uses belittling language such as he just used the moment he chimed in again.

[Batman]

t there have indeed been cases in which people have collected samples that have yielded DNA that turn out to be of a higher primate but not matching any known higher primate, thus labeled "inconclusive."

I want to see the report that said an alledged sasquatch print contained higher primate DNA. As far as I am concerned there is no such DNA in existence.

My point was your claim about the prints you found.

Your second point- She was polygraphed on the latter point, and she passed it. So forgive me if I don't have complete faith in those devices. (Btw she was convicted anyway.)

Nobody has complete faith in them, but Bob did pass one and that means he gets brownie points whereas Patterson et al., who refused to take one, don't.

Your third point- You're still taking it as a given that everything that holds true for a troup of gorillas would have to also apply to Bigfoot, and while I've agreed that there might be some similarities that is still a big leap. They are not gorillas, they are an uncataloged species. We can't know everything about their nature based on other species.

All living primates share a common ancestor and even Homo Sapien is a only few % different from a Chimpanzee let alone an unknown primate that is supposed to be higher than Chimps and Gorillas. We don't even deviate that much in behaviour from other apes!

[Batman]

With respect, firmly held scientific theories do not always turn out to be correct in the long run.

You omit your own line of reasoning here when it comes to Bigfoot. Why not also say, With respect, firmly held theories about bigfoot do not always turn out to be correct in the long run.... which happens to be the case with the fakers who turn up after and show how they faked it.

In 1821 an eminent zoologist of his day, Georges Cuvier, made what is today known as his "rash dictum"- a declaration that it was highly unlikely that there were any more large animals on Earth to be discovered. The list of those that have been since then is long. That was a big "oops" for Cuvier.

Before Darwin, biology was quite in a state. After him is another matter as the right way to predict and find new species was discovered, which he did. The current state of biology in 2014 flies in the face of bigfoot claims.

It was also once considered silly to believe that rocks could fall out of the sky. I'm just saying that scientific theory needs to be open to change.

They do change and expand all the time, but don't get completely overturned as a primate in the Americas would do. Scientific theories incorporate older theories and expand on them.

[Batman]

The hair was analyzed by Dr. Jerold Lowenstein of the University of California San Francisco, who found that it was a match for a higher primate, and the only higher primates he was not able to eliminate were human and chimpanzee, the two most advanced known primates.

This claim which is only found in Bigfoot magazines/books and nowhere else was not DNA and doesn't say what you say it did. The claim is Lowenstein used a new technique he made to determine if antibodies are made by primates or other animals. He said it matched primates. He did not say it wasn't human... He said it probably was!

http://books.google.com/books?id=hPST5ZLI4dAC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=Lowenstein+sasquatch&source=bl&ots=8IZ-_JaKwp&sig=mlb58QrAl6eqpXGS2raeKKlBwkY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oOiCVIDTJMH3Upvvg-AP&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Lowenstein%20sasquatch&f=false

Many skeptics have a working knowledge of the subject that consists only of those high profile cases and are unfamiliar with where the greatest evidence lies- the hundreds of low profile witnesses year after year who continue to have good sightings.

The evidence from evolutionary biology is overwhelmingly rejecting the sasqautch hypothesis. There can't be any primates that evolved in Americas. They couldn't have got there from Asia. The only primates that got to the Americas involved several massive speciation events within Africa and Europe before Homo Sapien could do it.

If there where hundreds of low profile sightings year after year, then where is the population of sasquatch to support such a high number of sightings as you put it?

Also where is the DNA? All anyone has to do is say, we saw it stand "there" and do a cotton bud swipe.

[kensei]

This claim which is only found in Bigfoot magazines/books and nowhere else was not DNA and doesn't say what you say it did. The claim is Lowenstein used a new technique he made to determine if antibodies are made by primates or other animals. He said it matched primates. He did not say it wasn't human... He said it probably was!

http://books.google.com/books?id=hPST5ZLI4dAC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=Lowenstein+sasquatch&source=bl&ots=8IZ-_JaKwp&sig=mlb58QrAl6eqpXGS2raeKKlBwkY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oOiCVIDTJMH3Upvvg-AP&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Lowenstein%20sasquatch&f=false

If there where hundreds of low profile sightings year after year, then where is the population of sasquatch to support such a high number of sightings as you put it?

Also where is the DNA? All anyone has to do is say, we saw it stand "there" and do a cotton bud swipe.

Where are they? Walking around in front of peoples' eyes on a semi-regular basis.

When I said "hundreds" I was referring to the numbers over several years but in a single year there are easily dozens. It's not in dispute that these are reported, and sure there are many that are at a distance and could be cases of mistaken identity. But there is a class of sightings that are unambiguous, the ones that are up close, such as one that made a witness in Alberta say "I went from being a total non-believer in sasquatch to a total believer in the space of about four seconds." I appreciate your amount of study, I really do. But telling those people that according to science they literally couldn't have seen what they saw because it's impossible, and that "it turns out that people are very poor observers" being a tool you use to completely dismiss something, is just insulting. I know you're not trying to be, but it tells the people they are one of three things- liars, crazy to the point of psychotic hallucination, or so stupid that they can't tell something ordinary from something amazing. I go to bat for the witnesses because I am one of them.

And I don't know what to tell you about why what people see doesn't conform to all the laws of science as they are known. All I know for sure is that people do see it. I really don't want this subject to have to be put up into the paranormal thread, but if that's where it leads then so be it.

(And by the way, I am highly skeptical of your assertion that lock-solid DNA can be acquired merely from the dirt an animal's walked on. If that was true then forensics could identify any criminal whose bare skin so much as brushed against something, rather than having to rely on fingerprints, hair and fluids.)

[Batman]

Where are they? Walking around in front of peoples' eyes on a semi-regular basis.

I appreciate your amount of study, I really do. But telling those people that according to science they literally couldn't have seen what they saw because it's impossible, and that "it turns out that people are very poor observers" being a tool you use to completely dismiss something, is just insulting.

Do you believe everything everyone tells you? Of course you don't. We show doubt where the level of expectation is well above and beyond what the evidence warrents and especially the evidence to the contrary, which is abundant in the case of sasquatch. There is simply, and never had been, the evolution of primates in the America. Anyone here can take the time out to look at primate evolution and migration patterns throughout time. There is no chance of primate evolution in America except for us.

I know you're not trying to be, but it tells the people they are one of three things- liars, crazy to the point of psychotic hallucination, or so stupid that they can't tell something ordinary from something amazing. I go to bat for the witnesses because I am one of them.

There are plenty people who have come forward as hoaxers galore with respect to sasquatch. There is no doubt in my mind that Patterson and Gimlin sought to make money from such a charade. It isn't the first time. Ape-men have been going around making money in carnivals for years. Memory studies should point out how bad people's memories can be. So you claim to have seen a sasquatch? Up close? Why hasn't a single night time camera ever been able to record one despite zoologists putting them up nearly everywhere. Why not 1 single piece of CCTV footage? Did anyone have a camcorder when the say one? How about GOOGLE EARTH for where they might live. Zip. Not a thing. Which is consistant with their being nothing.

And I don't know what to tell you about why what people see doesn't conform to all the laws of science as they are known. All I know for sure is that people do see it.

No you can't know this for sure. All you can do is put faith in their stories, that's it.

Carl Sagan repeated the famous phrase, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. There isn't even evidence for sasquatch let alone exceptional evidence. Nothing. Not a single piece of sasquatch or his dung for analysis.

(And by the way, I am highly skeptical of your assertion that lock-solid DNA can be acquired merely from the dirt an animal's walked on.

It is impossible for it not to leave behind DNA. Living things shed cells and fluids all the time. You can't have an animal pass through an area and leave no DNA behind.

If that was true then forensics could identify any criminal whose bare skin so much as brushed against something, rather than having to rely on fingerprints, hair and fluids.)

They do. Just breathing is enough for DNA cells to leave your body and deposit on something.

It's called dust.

Not one single bigfoot encounter claim has ever been able to provide DNA despite the fact its so easy to collect.

[pinkmoon]

If that film was faked once then surely it can be faked again we are still waiting .why make patty female?Why go to the trouble of filming 400 miles from home?Why film in perfect light?Why film patty from the back monkey suits always fall down when the neck joins the body at the back?Why not get a perfect back story together?The detail that can be seen in patty now thanks to computer technology is just to advanced for a monkey suit in 1967 let alone today.There is a book available to buy called when roger met patty it is written by a gentleman called Bill munns who has nearly fifty years experience in the special effects business it is worth a read by anyone with an interest in this subject also on YouTube there is a clip called 1 of 82 Patterson gimlin big foot best clips it lasts 5.21 watch it .The munns report by Bill munns is available on the web as well as a free download well worth a look.