Famous Bigfoot film: 40th anniversary

Discuss

12 Responses to “Famous Bigfoot film: 40th anniversary”

  1. nj says:

    I prefer this “stabilised” animated GIF of the footage:

    http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

  2. Loren Coleman says:

    Cryptozoologists are, needless to say, skeptical in our approach. At least the grounded ones I know are.

    Reams of mistakes, misidentifications, and mundane fakes come our way. We have to sort through a great deal to come forth with the remarkable bits of evidence, which tend to call for more studies.

    But being skeptical is much different than what you get from “debunkers,” those who would rather come forth with a dogma that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, without even looking.

    When someone writes something like this: “Hell, no one has even found scat left behind by this species, hair, or any other item that could be DNA tested and identified as originating from a primate..,” they are only displaying their ignorance of the field of hominology.

    Of course, all kinds of tangible, testable evidence has been found, and databases exist ready and waiting for the “type specimen.” Primate findings have been made, dear crutch aves, of hair, feces, and more.

    Next, there’s this Morris costume company suit tale. It is a story that has been floating around for only a few years, and yet the people in the Carolinas associated with that factory are now convincing themselves their lame-fitting, disruptive hair pattern fake gorilla suit is “the one.”

    But this is all about a suspension of reality and a mind-set of true believers. Ask yourself, why is this “Morris suit claim” to be “believed” when all the imagery between the suit and the Patterson footage Bigfoot just don’t match?

    Critical thinking goes both ways.

  3. Brian Shumate says:

    One point I forgot to make echoes the sentiments of supporters when defending this video, and it goes: “if this is faked, then where is the suit?”.

    I have the same kind of question, but mine is: “if these creatures exist, then where are the remains?”.

    Would you ask someone to believe in Dinosaurs without being able to provide some physical evidence that they existed?

    Unfortunately, these creatures are just like UFOs that we would be led to believe are extraterrestrial in origin. Without a shred of physical proof, without a skeleton, or even a single, unusually large, and radically different femur, one cannot posit the existence of bigfoot in a scientific manner, just as one cannot with ET-based UFOs.

    Show us some bones, some fossils even… something tangible, which this video is not.

  4. mark zero says:

    There’s a vertical seam on the back, and the stabilized animated gif hints at a horizontal line across the waist. Additionally, looking at the face, it looks like something drawn up tight, leaving a clear space for the eyes to look out.

    Additionally, the zooms on the washed out version of the footage show that the surface “skin” of the creature’s backside moves more like cloth.

  5. sky says:

    Y cn ttlly s crs bt ght nchs dwn th “bgft’s” rght thgh. Nt rlly crs, bt plc whr th fbrc frm th cstm blgs p. Tht dsn’t hppn wth nmls s mch bcs t trns t th skn s ttchd t th bdy. Ths s jst trnd rght nw n th hpstr cmmnty. t’s why ths thrws cl blg hd ths “cryptzlgy” (rd: nt zlgy) stff pstd ll th tm, nd why lwys hv t scrll thrgh mntns f “hw t knt $thngTKnt” psts. Trndy ppl sck.

  6. Brian Shumate says:

    The suit was made in Charlotte, North Carolina by an area costume maker/supplier. I have a friend who used to work there, and apparently it is the common thread of discussion amongst employees and their family, friends, etc. when it comes to discussing the place.

    This is so clearly not an actual new species, and just some dude in a (albeit somewhat convincing for the time) suit, that even my six-year-old recognizes it as such.

    But hey, it is the time of year to drag this sad sack of suit out again, so trick or treat!

    Seriously though folks, this story is something that might very well be solved and proven for what it was in the coming year actually…

  7. ill lich says:

    OK– let’s assume the famous Patterson film is a hoax. I’m willing to believe that.

    But that doesn’t explain all the other sightings, including those that predate the Patterson film.
    I find it far more reasonable to believe there is a species we don’t know about, that doesn’t want any contact with humans, than that there is an army of hoaxers out there running around our national forests, often in the remotest areas where they wouldn’t expect another human to come upon their hoax. And if you consider that people who claim to have seen one are ridiculed by friends and strangers alike, there’s really no reason to think folks are making up stories about what they saw.

    “Oh it was probably just a bear”– really? Have you ever seen a cow or a deer and mistaken it for a horse?

  8. neven says:

    Uh… what?

    “Over the last four decades, the short shaky film has ignited countless young people’s interest in cryptozoology and strange phenomena, including my own.”

    And that’s a good thing, yeah?

    “As Loren Coleman suggests over at Cryptomundo, let’s take just a moment to shelve preconceived notions and rumors, put “belief” and “disbelief” back in the province of religion where they belong,”

    Lolz. I’ll try that one some time… “what, dear cashier, you don’t believe me when I say that this photocopied $100 bill is genuine? Let’s take a moment to put ‘belief’ and ‘disbelief’ back in the province of religion….”

    How far back do you have to bend over in order to defend someone’s obsession (beyond the fourth grade) with a lame old film of a dude in an ape costume? Jeez.

  9. Brian Carnell says:

    “As Loren Coleman suggests over at Cryptomundo, let’s take just a moment to shelve preconceived notions and rumors, put “belief” and “disbelief” back in the province of religion where they belong, and just appreciate the curiosity of the clip.”

    Yeah, that and Xenu. Thank goodness for wacky hoaxers and their enablers.

  10. ill lich says:

    I am hardly “obsessed” with Bigfoot/Yeti/etc., but that doesn’t mean I think it’s all bunk. Like a lot of people, for a long time I just assumed it was “a dude in an ape costume” . . . then I heard noted primate researcher Jane Goodall mention in an interview that she believes these creatures exist, and in fact there were similar reports from all over the world.

    If you come to the film, or any Bigfoot related tale with a mindset of disbelief, you will naturally laugh and point at those you consider idiots, it’s not much different than the first person to claim the earth was round: “Idiot, OBVIOUSLY it’s flat, or we’d all fall off! Oh, your ‘evidence’ consists of pure mathematics divined from looking through a telescope? Give me a break!”

    Perhaps the one thing that finally convinced me that there was something going on here was reading the various reports on BFRO.net– the way they spread out across the USA, the many similarities in sightings, the fact that the stories predate the hoopla surrounding the Patterson film in 1967 and the ensuing Bigfoot-mania of the 1970′s (by several centuries). Then there’s the evolutionary evidence and theory– huge apes DID exist in north Asia thousands of years ago, and evidence shows they were hunted by early humans. . . logically any surviving apes of this species would have quickly learned to avoid humans at all cost. Nearly every reported sighting follows this exactly: human sees Bigfoot, Bigfoot sees human, Bigfoot flees, no time for human to take a picture. Plus those that have seen a Bigfoot often won’t talk about it, because when they do they are ridiculed.

    Sure, it’s easy to dismiss, when only you think of Bigfoot as some 1970′s character on “The Six Million Dollar Man.” Just go to BFRO.net and read some sighting reports, even if you disbelieve at the very least you’ll get a kick out of it.

  11. Crunchbird says:

    Doesn’t that silliness about putting “belief and disbelief back into the province of religion” and the plea for open-mindedness sound an awful lot like the crap arguments that the intelligent design people put forward on behalf of their agenda? And why should anyone be required to “debunk” a video that offers no actual proof of its authenticity? To me, that looks exactly like a person in a well-made animal suit walking through the forest, and it’s up to the cryptozoology types to present me with SOME believable corroborating evidence to convince me otherwise.

    They can tout all the blurry images and plaster footprint casts they want, but to date no one has ever discovered a single carcass, or skeleton, or even a partial carcass from a “bigfoot.” Hell, no one has even found scat left behind by this species, hair, or any other item that could be DNA tested and identified as originating from a primate. Why are otherwise smart people so enamored of this crypto stuff that they urge us to suspend our disbelief, and ignore the opposing evidence, when they’d be so utterly and totally pissed if you told them to apply the same reasoning to religion, or other areas of science?

  12. ill lich says:

    It’s like gambling– I can sit and watch the roulette wheel for several minutes, and if I see black come up 5 times in a row, I am willing to bet it’s very likely that red will come up next or very soon, and place my bet on red. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m willing to make the bet.

    Several years ago I got curious about the Bigfoot phenomenon, and for a few months poured over all the info I could get. Sure, there are some hoaxers out there, but a forged Rembrandt painting doesn’t mean that all the other Rembrandts are also fakes, or that Rembrandt never existed. If you look at all the reliable evidence (not just this film, but the footprints, the hair samples, the sound recordings, eyewitness accounts) it’s NOT proof, it’s NOT set in stone, but it DOES push the odds to favor the existence of some unknown primate. I think that’s all Coleman is saying. I also suspect the naysayers haven’t really looked into the phenomenon other than what they heard around the water cooler at work (“Yeah sure, I seen one o’ them Bigfoot-creatures. . . in a men’s room on the Jersey Turnpike in 1983. . . “) After all, I was one of those naysayers for some time.

    Of course it doesn’t matter, there’s nothing at stake here (unlike the Darwin vs. Creationism debate)– if some day someone does produce a Bigfoot carcass, all the naysayers can suddenly claim they knew all along. No problem.

Leave a Reply