The Patterson Footage .....

Bob Gray said:
To be fair, there are large portions of the pacific northwest wooded areas that are relatively unexplored. For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they have been seen before in places where that are close to populations. Now, with all the cameras, they have not been seen?
 
BearGrounds said:
The lack of trail camera photos is one thing that can be cause for doubt, for sure. But like OAKS pointed out above, there are large areas of wilderness that simply aren't covered by trail cams or frequented by humans.

Added to that, we know that even deer can recognize trail cams (albeit they're pretty dumb and still get caught on them often enough). Research shows that Coyotes are quite adept at avoiding them, specifically within their territorial range - a transient being much more likely to be caught on one.

So if Sasquatch exists, it may be quite good at noticing the out of place equipment. Then again, maybe it simply does not exist and that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source that Coyotes avoid trail cams? I can't find much.

http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3648622/Re:_Putting_game_camera's_on_c

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/trail-cameras-for-coyotes/

All I see is them getting caught on camera.
 
rj144 said:
Do you have a source that Coyotes avoid trail cams? I can't find much.

http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3648622/Re:_Putting_game_camera's_on_c

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/trail-cameras-for-coyotes/

All I see is them getting caught on camera.
Click to expand...

Sure, they still get caught from time to time. But it's also been shown that they do indeed make an effort to avoid them for whatever reason.

Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries.

Abstract: The primary objective of this study was to develop a better understanding of coyote (Canis latrans) wariness particularly as it related to social status. We determined that territory status (controlling alpha, resident beta, or nonterritorial transient) affected vulnerability to photo-capture by infrared-triggered camera systems. All coyotes were wary of cameras, leading to relatively low numbers of photo-captures, most of which occurred at night. Alphas were significantly underrepresented in photographs and were never photo-captured inside their own territories. Betas were photographed inside and outside their territories, whereas transients were most often photographed on edges of territories. Both alphas and betas were photographed more often on territorial edges when outside their territories. We next addressed the question of how alphas were better able to avoid photo-capture. Alphas tracked human activity within their territories and presumably learned the locations of cameras as they were being set up. They did this either by approaching our location directly or by moving to a vantage point from where they could observe us. Betas and transients either withdrew or did not respond to human activity. Trials in which a dog was present were more likely to elicit an approach response from alphas. Avoidance of camera stations and the tracking of human activity implied wariness toward objects or locations resulting from their learned association with human presence rather than neophobia toward the objects themselves.
Click to expand...

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
 
Does anyone know or can anyone clarify where Oprah was vacationing at the time of this video being recorded??
 
Last edited:
Look at this drawing done by patterson, BEFORE the film and before he had ever claimed to had even seen bigfoot.

1966patterson4gp.jpg


Strikingly similar, and debunks the claims by believers the detail of it having breasts was something that a hillbilly like Patterson wouldn't come up with.

Keep in mind that the footprints that were found in that area before Patterson investigated it have been proven to be a hoax. So what are the odds that someone tricks him into going somewhere to find bigfoot, and even though what led him there was a hoax he randomly happened upon a bigfoot anyway, and one that looks nearly exactly like a drawing he made up years earlier.

I don't buy the whole "couldn't be faked in 1967 bs."

The whole basis for that claim was made on the fact that they didn't have stretchy fur material back then in hollywood costumes, BUT the claim by those that say they helped hoax it is that they used a fresh animal skin to make the costume, which would stretch and look better than even today's best artificial special FX material.

I can't prove it was a hoax, and it is a very good one if it is. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this is not that.
 
The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not-and, more important-cannot be a hoax. The question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false.

Grover Krantz, for example, admits that the size of the creature in the film is well within human limits, but argues that the chest width is impossibly large to be human. “I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly,” he claims (Krantz 1992, 118). This assertion was examined by two anthropologists, David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt (1999), who cite anthropometric literature showing the “impossibly wide” chest is in fact within normal human variation. They also disprove claims that the Patterson creature walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate.

The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, Patterson told people he was going out with the express purpose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening thirty-five years (and despite dramatic advances in technology and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of people have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty-handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a known Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly where to go to see the Bigfoot on that day (Dennett 1996). Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including publicity for a book he had written on the subject and an organization he had started.

In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution’s director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film (pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man’s; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that “there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind.”
Click to expand...

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence
 
Hans Gercmiov said:
The Bili ape was just first documented in 2003.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

bili-ape-in-the-wild.jpg
Click to expand...

I love these guys! I was so excited when they were discovered because it seemed to answer the mystery posed by that photo of an European exploring Africa in the late 1800s who posed with what looked like an impossibly large chimpanzee. People kept saying the photo was a hoax, but now we know that it could have been real.

Now there's just the mystery of Oliver, that half-human/half-chimp hybrid from the Soviet experiments....

But the Billi weren't totally unknown, just unknown to scientists. The locals knew of these giant chimps and knew them so well that they classified the chimps based on their behaviours and told scientists were they could be found. And the giant chimps which lived closest to civlization had obviously learned to be wary of man, based on their reactions compared to the reactions of giant chimps from a much more remote location, so clearly there was much interaction between these "undiscovered animals" and the locals.

The same when the Coelacanth was discovered: the locals had been catching them for ages and were able to tell the scientists which waters they were in.

The same with that Vietnamese deer, which was one of the last large, land-dwelling mammals discovered: the local Vietnamese knew they were there and told scientists were to find them.

In North America, however, there isn't anyone who can point scientists to bigfoot. No local peoples are eating them or using their furs. There hasn't been a large mammal discovered in North America in over 100 years and certainly now, with the proliferation of people and technology, it seems unlikely that there's something surviving out there that leaves absolutely no physical traces.

New Zealand has an interesting parallel to our bigfoot conundrum: their cryptid is Canadian Moose, which were introduced in the 1930s and went extinct shortly after. Or so they say. Many moose hunters, eerily similar to western bigfoot hunters, are determined to prove they still exist in the remotest parts of the island; they have no physical proof, but they're constantly finding things like tree markings that they say only a moose rubbing their antlers could produce.

(As a side note: Australia recently had an entire plateau discovered for the first time. Because of its remote location, no man had ever walked their before and could only be reached by helicopter. It contained many, many previously undiscovered creatures, but they were all quite small.)
 
JosephDredd said:
I love these guys! I was so excited when they were discovered because it seemed to answer the mystery posed by that photo of an European exploring Africa in the late 1800s who posed with what looked like an impossibly large chimpanzee. People kept saying the photo was a hoax, but now we know that it could have been real.

Now there's just the mystery of Oliver, that half-human/half-chimp hybrid from the Soviet experiments....

But the Billi weren't totally unknown, just unknown to scientists. The locals knew of these giant chimps and knew them so well that they classified the chimps based on their behaviours and told scientists were they could be found. And the giant chimps which lived closest to civlization had obviously learned to be wary of man, based on their reactions compared to the reactions of giant chimps from a much more remote location, so clearly there was much interaction between these "undiscovered animals" and the locals.

The same when the Coelacanth was discovered: the locals had been catching them for ages and were able to tell the scientists which waters they were in.

The same with that Vietnamese deer, which was one of the last large, land-dwelling mammals discovered: the local Vietnamese knew they were there and told scientists were to find them.

In North America, however, there isn't anyone who can point scientists to bigfoot. No local peoples are eating them or using their furs. There hasn't been a large mammal discovered in North America in over 100 years and certainly now, with the proliferation of people and technology, it seems unlikely that there's something surviving out there that leaves absolutely no physical traces.

New Zealand has an interesting parallel to our bigfoot conundrum: their cryptid is Canadian Moose, which were introduced in the 1930s and went extinct shortly after. Or so they say. Many moose hunters, eerily similar to western bigfoot hunters, are determined to prove they still exist in the remotest parts of the island; they have no physical proof, but they're constantly finding things like tree markings that they say only a moose rubbing their antlers could produce.

(As a side note: Australia recently had an entire plateau discovered for the first time. Because of its remote location, no man had ever walked their before and could only be reached by helicopter. It contained many, many previously undiscovered creatures, but they were all quite small.)
Click to expand...

What do you make of the inverted trees that are supposedly associated with Bigfoot?

509.jpg


On another note, Les Stroud takes the subject very seriously, and I consider him to be an extremely credible source.
 
Hans Gercmiov said:
What do you make of the inverted trees that are supposedly associated with Bigfoot?

509.jpg


On another note, Les Stroud takes the subject very seriously, and I consider him to be an extremely credible source.
Click to expand...

How are they associated with Bigfoot? Has Bigfoot been seen to be interacting with the trees?
 
Bob Gray said:
How are they associated with Bigfoot? Has Bigfoot been seen to be interacting with the trees?
Click to expand...

That's what they say. In any event, it would be very difficult to accomplish. They're found in some very remote locations. It's pretty strange to me.
 
Hans Gercmiov said:
What do you make of the inverted trees that are supposedly associated with Bigfoot?

509.jpg
Click to expand...

I never heard of the inverted tree theory. I tapped out from learning about bigfoot from bigfootologists after I read about their ability to avoid detection by walking down rivers as though they were part escaped convict and their ability to confuse humans with sonic screams as though they were also part Bengal tiger.

Tbh I learn more interesting bigfoot lore from real scientists and the people debunking bigfootologist claims than from the people making the bigfoot claims. This is because the scientific community will say, "Yes, we have all these accounts through hundred years of history and we haven't been able to write them all off as hoaxes. And we also have unusual DNA results, like the Indian polar bear confusion." This gets my mind racing with ideas.

In comparison, the bigfootologists will say, "This DNA testing result, which contains DNA from a dozen different animals, is NOT an indication that my samples were contaminated, but CONFIRMS my assertion that the creature we know as bigfoot are actually biblical Nephilim!" (true story, woman by the name of Ketchum.)

On another note, Les Stroud takes the subject very seriously, and I consider him to be an extremely credible source.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the Survivorman guy? I didn't know he was connected with bigfoot hunters. What's his story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BluntForceTrama
Anniversary of the Patterson Gimlin Film - Live Lecture By Bob Gimlin
2 3
Replies
56
Views
905
BluntForceTrama
BluntForceTrama

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,309
Messages
58,274,751
Members
175,989
Latest member
gorakk

Share this page

Back
Top