Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Sunday, September 21, 2014
DVD Review of Bigfoot Film 'Willow Creek' by Bobcat Goldthwait
A few days back I was begrudgingly shopping at the monopoly known as Wal Mart, when I spotted a DVD copy of Willlow Creek (released on disc September 9th) and snatched it up. Speaking as a 33 year old who has studied Bigfoot since I first found a book on the topic in the school library back in second grade, I must say I'm very pleased with the purchase. There is funny skeptic vs. believer banter between the two main characters who visit many real Bigfoot tourist destinations in the film. These include Bigfoot roadside statues, as well as a Bigfoot themed restaurant, gas station, hotel, and book store. Odd Bigfoot paintings seen at these locations inspire more hilarious light hearted dialogue. The destinations and beautiful lush California country side are shot in very high quality by the fictional couple as they film scenes for their documentary, but it has a very natural feel due to good acting and the impromptu nature of the film making coupled with very real interviews they conduct about Bigfoot at the real locations visited. This really made me feel as though I got to go on a Bigfoot road trip for the $10 price of the DVD.
As to the horror movie aspect of the film, I wasn't as pleased. There is one particular scene where the couple is camped out near the famous Pastterson-Gimlin film site and starts hearing Bigfoot vocalizations and wood knocks that while accurate in its depiction, I thought dragged on for far too long. That being said, I think people less familiar with the subject matter, are far more likely to find this scene suspenseful as was intended. THAT being said, I defer to the top Amazon.com review of the film written by a individual who doesn't consider themselves a member of the Bigfoot community.
17 of 20 people found the following review helpfulAnother excellent directorial job from Bobcat Goldthwait,
June 6, 2014 Verified Purchase(What's this?)This review is from: Willow Creek (Amazon Instant Video)This is a found footage horror film directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. Bobcat has a reputation as a mediocre to bad actor, but a pretty good standup comic. He's also a top notch indy film director. His first picture was the classic, Shakes the Clown--called "the Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies." He followed that up with Sleeping Dogs Lie, World's Greatest Dad, God Bless America, all of which are strange, thought provoking films. He also spent time as a television director (The Man Show, Jimmy Kimmel: Live, Penn & Teller's Sin City Spectacular, others). This one is his first horror movie, which is about Bigfoot.
According to Bobcat, most of the interviews in the first half of the picture are real interviews with residents of Willow Creek, the Bigfoot Capital of the World. The main characters are a couple heading out into Six Rivers National Forest, to trace the Patterson-Gimlin footage of 1967. While out in the woods they hear lots of bizarre sounds, and aren't sure if it is a creature in the forest, or locals messing with the outsiders, but it is very certain that they aren't welcome. It's a shame they're also lost.
Found footage is an irritating, not-yet-dead medium, but it works well with this type of story. Bobcat manages to instill real tension and scares into what should be a goofy premise. I recommend this one whole-heartedly. It has great reviews from critics, and the Bigfoot community seem to appreciate that he wasn't making fun of them.
Goldthwait is in fact a bonafide member of the Bigfoot community.
Bobcat Goldthwait became obsessed while filming Big Foot film
Bobcat Goldthwait became obsessed while filming Big Foot film
Police Academy star Bobcat Goldthwait has married his love of directing with his passion for Big Foot by making a new movie about a search for Sasquatch. The funnyman-turned-filmmaker shot Willow Creek in the remote Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, where Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin shot footage of what appeared to be Big Foot in 1967, and he admits he has become a big part of the community surrounding the myth. But he confesses the chance he might stumble across the real thing while making Willow Creek turned him into an obsessive. He says, "I shot the movie where the Patterson and Gimlin footage was originally shot, that footage where Big Foot's walking through and looks back. It's 17 miles down a dirt road; it takes two and a half hours to get there. There's no cell phones, there's no planes going over. "You're in the middle of nowhere and when we were filming, we actually did see two mountain lions.... I'm out there and the idea of getting mauled to death wasn't lost on me - 'Bobcat killed by bobcat'... I was kind of insane when I made this movie... I was really obsessed." Goldthwait admits he takes his love of Big Foot seriously, adding, "People bust my chops on this because I'm an atheist who believes in Big Foot, but I've met people who have heard and seen Big Foot... I'm accepted in the community; I've gone out looking for Big Foot with these guys on a number of occasions. "I've been to Big Foot conventions and it's fascinating because most people in the Big Foot community believe Big Foot has a flat head, not a pointy head... This guy had a cardboard cut-out of a pointy headed Big Foot and the other guy comes over to him and he goes, 'You disgust me, look at his head!' And he goes, 'Really? I've seen Big Foot three times and you're never gonna see him 'cause you smoke!'"
Furthermore, Goldthwait has brought positive attention to the topic during promotional interviews for the film like the two below where he engages in level-headed discussion of the matter. I don't recall for certain, but believe he makes it clear that in reality Sasquatch is not a horror movie monster, but as Dr. Jeff Meldrum, author of Sasquatch Legend Meets Science,
notes in his Sasquatch Field Guide, "While there have been no
credible reports of unprovoked attacks on humans sasquatch are
nevertheless large and very powerful creatures demonstrating feats of
considerable strength and should be accorded the same caution as a bear
or any other potentially dangerous wild animal."
So please consider supporting his work with a DVD or Blu-ray purchase. It can be rented digitally from Amazon and Youtube, but if you purchase a hard copy you will get the extra features, which includes a deleted interview with Finding Bigfoot's Cliff Barackman, great and again laugh filled audio commentary, and a humorous clip that unintentionally proves faking Bigfoot tracks is not nearly as easy as one might think. The difference in depth between the faked tracks made in obviously soft soil and those taken from the PG film site are quite clear.
Also included in the extras is a very good and again laugh filled audio commentary.
 |
| Bobcat Goldthwait struggling to fake Bigfoot Tracks |
Also included in the extras is a very good and again laugh filled audio commentary.
Incidentally, during a scene in the film at the Bigfoot book store, an advertisement for the Bigfoot Times newsletter can be seen, which featured a mention of this site in the July edition.
 |
| Scene from Willow Creek at Bigfoot Book Store - Bigfoot Times Ad Seem Bottom-Right |
Bobcat & Bigfoot
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/06/16
| Date: | 06-16-13 | ||
| Host: | George Knapp | ||
| Guests: | Bobcat Goldthwait, Don Ecker |
In the first half, George Knapp was joined by comedian, actor, writer, and filmmaker, Bobcat Goldthwait, for a discussion of his new film which delves into the world of Bigfoot. The film, called Willow Creek, follows a couple (a documentary maker and his girlfriend), who are trying to find the location where Patterson & Gimlin shot their famous Bigfoot film in 1967. Using a found footage technique, the film portrays a lot of the elements and evidence that have been cited in Bigfoot cases, and mixes a 'mockumentary' style using both real people and actors, with some genuine scares, and suspense.
Shooting in the Trinity National Forest in Northern California, Goldthwait was amazed at how large and dense the area was. "You really get this idea of how many millions of acres are completely unexplored-- we lose planes in these areas-- and they don't find the planes," he remarked. The film employs chilling Bigfoot vocalizations similar to what actual witnesses have reported. Goldthwait also talked about some of the other films he directed, including the dark satire God Bless America, World's Greatest Dad, and Shakes the Clown, which Martin Scorsese called "the Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies."
Friday, September 19, 2014
Review: When Roger Met Patty. 1 Minute of Film...47 Years Of Controversy
When Roger Met Patty. 1 Minute of Film...47 Years Of Controversy.,
By
I was somewhat baffled by this 492 page book by
William "Bill" Howard Munns, a makeup artist, wildlife artist, CGI
artist and museum exhibit model designer -- that it was self published
on the eve of the 47th anniversary of the historic Patterson-Gimlin film
from October 1967. In my mind the better choice for a release date
would have been on the 50th anniversary. I hear of wedded people
celebrating their 50th anniversary but seldom hear of any mention of
someone celebrating their 47th anniversary. No matter, for those who
know and have followed my work via my newsletter, the Bigfoot Times,
and more specifically, my on going work on the P-G film, that is just me
being me.
My purchased review copy of When Roger Met Patty, dated August 4, 2014, is scribbled with a bunch of circled words, numerous questions marks and comments, and my thoughts about this work are many. As other reviewers have already noted, in this tome there is too much Munns and not enough intelligent discussion about the subject in the movie film. In the introduction in the first paragraph Bill Munns makes his first error. "...walking hastily away from the men at one point looking back at the camera..." According to Bob Gimlin, the only living witness to the event, when the frame count for the film is in the 350 range, the subject turns to look at Bob Gimlin, NOT Roger Patterson, who was holding the camera. In several interviews with Bob Gimlin he told me the subject knew where Roger was but was apparently concerned about the whereabouts of Bob Gimlin, who was still moving.
One thing that is clear to me and has been for several years, that no amount of argument for or against this film (I guess you can think "believers" vs. "skeptics") will ever decide the matter. The subject is either a man in a costume or an unknown primate known as Bigfoot, and whether your own arguments are for or against the matter, that doesn't change the outcome one bit. You may believe that 2+3=4 because your math professor said it was so...but that doesn't make it so. The other thing that continues to fascinate me is why spill so much digital ink on the P-G film? Why don't the doubters and skeptics invest their time on "Bigfoot" films made by Ivan Marx, Paul Freeman, or a great many more posted to YouTube? If it is a fake, why invest any amount of time on it? You might ask yourself why is it that the P-G film always bubbles to the top and not, for instance, the Freeman or Marx footage. The P-G film continues to taunt even after all this time. It evokes strong reactions.
What I find elevating in this book is here is someone who has worked in Hollywood as a makeup up artist, etc. and instead of making passing comments or talking points for television or newspaper consumption, Bill Munns single handedly launched a thorough investigation of this historic film and extracted information that no one knew before. So with his decades of make up artistry behind him, Bill concludes on page 476: "On this basis it can be concluded that the PGF Hominid is a biological primate fully organic in its appearance, and is not the result of a fur cloth costume worn by a human mime and attempting to appear as a real biological entity." It would be hard to diminish this statement drawn from years of experience, especially in light of the fact that Bill did many experiments to find answers to questions he posed to himself.
Prior to Bill Munns coming on the scene, no one knew the P-G film had 954 frames in it. The late René Dahinden, part owner of the film, always provided the number 952, and for those of you who have seen my personal e-mail address, you can be certain where that number came from. 952 frames in the entire P-G movie is wrong according to Bill Munns. A 954 frame count was discovered in the inventory process of the copy of the film in possession of Peter Byrne, a well known Bigfoot investigator. But I have heard that Byrne's copy comes from René Dahinden, so that would suggest that Dahinden's copy, obviously, must also have 954 frames. The only true confirmation of that number would come from a physical examination of the 16 millimeter camera original film.
Off topic for a moment, there are still things to be learned, even so many years after the film was shot. It wasn't until July 2012, by way of Bigfooter Steven Streufert from Willow Creek, California, did I learn that the store that Roger and Bob stopped at on the evening of October 20, 1967, to phone Al Hodgson about their film was on the south side of Highway 299 (Al's original store), not the north side, where the new store is located. It isn't a conspiracy of any sort, it is just one of those pesky facts that slipped through the cracks. The entire Bigfoot community just assumed the store that was in question was on the north side of the highway. In fact, in 1967, Al had a much smaller store, on the south side of the street. Often times this information is not widely distributed because people like Al Hodgson may have assumed that everyone already knew the variety store in question was located on the south side of Highway 299.
But getting back to reviewing the book. There are too many photos and illustrations. The author should have scaled down here considerably with only images that would illustrate his key points. Many of the images are of no value, like page 389. The images are far too small to have any visual effect on a reader. And the photo captions are hard to find, often blending in with the main text. Also, it doesn't seem like there are any photo credits to any of the images. For instance, on page 262 the image of the male bodybuilders is from The New Encyclopedia Of Modern Bodybuilding, 1998, by Arnold Schwarzenegger and published by Simon and Schuster. One gets the impression that many of the images were simply lifted from other sources and used without permission.
Then there is the matter of proof reading. Based on what I see, the book was never proofed. "Phillip Morris" on page 11 should read "Philip." On page 84 we see a "Raquel Welsh's fur bikini." Last I remember it was Raquel Welch and the movie is "One Million Years B.C." not "One Million B.C." On page 113: Roger's home town is noted as Yakima, Washington, which is not true. "proximate" should read "approximate" on page 134. On page 259 we are greeted with "the Oldivi Gorge region of Kenya, Africa." The last I remember that is the Olduvai Gorge and it is in Tanzania. You get the idea. For the super critical reviewer of Bill Munns' body of work, it would strongly suggest the author is careless in thought and writing. As the late René Dahinden used to opine, if you don't have the facts, your opinion is of no value.
On page 3 Bill writes, "the camera original footage was passed from Patterson to a film company, American National Enterprises (ANE)..." Munns should have been more accurate in his writing. The film was LOANED, not "passed," which might imply many things, even ownership. He goes on to write ANE went bankrupt and the "new owner had rightful physical possession." The camera original was a LOANED film, not something ANE ever purchased.
Bill Munns discusses the importance of the "film image data evidence, which is truly empirical and fine..." which proves to be a very salient point raised by the author. What is important is what is on that strip of film, the subject depicted in it, not the "backstory," which he likens to "...recollections of people are crappy evidence, and proves nothing because it's junk more so that [sic: than] fact." (Page 23.) So even if Roger Patterson spelled his name as "Rodger" instead of Roger or whether he didn't pay his camera rental bill or spend time with his kids, WHAT does that have to do with what is depicted on his film?
But getting back to truly empirical evidence, what proof do we have the P-G footage was shot on October 20, 1967 and not earlier? That date would have to be considered the "backstory," therefore, as per Munns' thinking, it belongs in the pile of junk recollections. But hold your horses! The backstory is very important in my view and can't be diminished the least bit. It was on that day in October that Roger and Bob came out of the woods and talked with Al Hodgson and told him this film was shot earlier in the day. That was the same day Roger spoke to the late reporter Al Tostado from the Eureka (California), Times-Standard, and news of the event was published one day later, on October 21st. Prior to this, on the old Bluff Creek Road next to the P-G film site, Lyle Laverty and his timber management crew were there just days earlier and did not see any trackway on the P-G film site. When Laverty returned to the P-G film site on Monday, October 23rd, he took slide pictures of freshly deposited human-like tracks. So the useless backstory, when looked at objectively, does have value and in some cases locks things in for times and dates. I could go on with backstory information, but why bother if Bill Munns states it is of little value.
The back story again. On page 310 the author discusses the "second reel," the film of the tracks left by the subject in the P-G film. So, prove to me, in fact, that the trackway footage is directly associated with the subject in the P-G film? In the 954 frames of the P-G film, we don't actually see the subject making tracks, we just assume the subject left them. Yet there is a detailed discussion about the second reel of the tracks left at the scene with pictures included. At one time René Dahinden stated we have no evidence those tracks are associated with the subject in the film. The author also raises his own concern: "...we cannot conclusively connect anything in the trackway footage to any landscape element of Bluff Creek in the PGF." Therefore, it follows you can't connect the dots of the filmed subject with the filmed trackway.
But hold your horses once more! On page 5 the author writes about Marlon Keith (MK) Davis, who "began to study the film and strongly advocated the film's authenticity and the reality of the filmed subject...he then went down a path of tabloid sensationalism." It was M.K. Davis, when he was more studious and serious about the P-G film, who showed, as about as empirical as one can get, that there are depressions in the sand bar, seemingly footprints, in the wake of the P-G subject as it moves forward. So I wouldn't dismiss M.K. Davis so quickly, as that discovery, and his stabilization of the P-G film (taking the jiggle out of the film) have been great advancements in the serious discussion of the film.
What is absolutely brilliant in this work by the author is his map making of where Roger is in association with the subject, showing the lay of the land. No one has dialed it in as precisely as Bill Munns. During his study and inventory of several copies of the film, the author again noticed something no one had before, the number of times the cameraman's finger came off (presumably slipped) the camera trigger. In his study and the empirical evidence of the film itself, there appears to be six segments to the film. To think that extraction from the film was still possible so late in the game is just amazing, and Bill has a very convincing discussion about the starts/stops of the film footage. Prior to Bill's study, a researcher from Vancouver, Washington, Larry Lund, in the late 1990s, had noticed this as well, but was not able to summarize his thought process into writing.
On page 76 the author writes: "In the year 2000, I was interviewed in a newspaper, and offered my opinion that I felt the PGF hominid was not a hoax." The author does no favor for the reader as you are not told what newspaper, and the exact quotation as well is not offered. As well, on page 89 and 90 he talks about the late Janos Prohaska, who wore gorilla suits for various television shows. He was also interviewed for a Bigfoot television documentary, talking about the P-G film, yet the author fails to quote what was stated. Prohaska was of the opinion if the P-G film was fabricated, it was one of the best he had ever seen. I think the author should have dabbled a bit about the IM Index as seen in the subject in the P-G film, yet there is no discussion on the matter. He should have focused, too, more on the subject's height, and what percentage of the human population grow to that height. And he should have invested more time in the nature of the subject's gait (walk).
The author writes at length at how harsh his critics have been on his work. See page 349, "...those who criticize me..." yet I have yet to find an example in this book as to who these critics might be, even by their screen names they might use in various Internet discussion groups, such as the Bigfoot Forums. His two page index for the entire book (which is just short of 500 pages) is absolutely appalling. For those who have purchased or plan on purchasing this book, When Roger Met Patty, I would have to say you are buying an unfinished draft. Perhaps the author should shorten and tidy up the sum of his work and consolidate his thinking into something like 200 pages. The photos and image credits need improvement.
However, in the end I find myself at the scientific crossroads. Science (real science) is about or partly about the process of replication. When something is demonstrated to the scientific community, other scientists want to know how it is done. The recipe, if I may. And then they try to duplicate the results, like, for instance, super tough screen glass for a smart phone that will not scratch or break.
So I would say the same for this enigmatic footage from Bluff Creek, California. Yet the fact remains, after nearly 47 years and many attempts (several seen on television) no one has been able to replicate the subject seen in Roger Patterson's home movie. If he faked the P-G film, after all these years no one, not even Hollywood, has cooked up a better recipe.
Think about that for a moment.
By itself, that should speak volumes to both armchair buffs and those who have researched the film extensively.
***********************
I guess a lot of people read my book reviews and Gene Baade reviewed my review and it might offer readers greater insight to what I have already written. Here it is:
My purchased review copy of When Roger Met Patty, dated August 4, 2014, is scribbled with a bunch of circled words, numerous questions marks and comments, and my thoughts about this work are many. As other reviewers have already noted, in this tome there is too much Munns and not enough intelligent discussion about the subject in the movie film. In the introduction in the first paragraph Bill Munns makes his first error. "...walking hastily away from the men at one point looking back at the camera..." According to Bob Gimlin, the only living witness to the event, when the frame count for the film is in the 350 range, the subject turns to look at Bob Gimlin, NOT Roger Patterson, who was holding the camera. In several interviews with Bob Gimlin he told me the subject knew where Roger was but was apparently concerned about the whereabouts of Bob Gimlin, who was still moving.
One thing that is clear to me and has been for several years, that no amount of argument for or against this film (I guess you can think "believers" vs. "skeptics") will ever decide the matter. The subject is either a man in a costume or an unknown primate known as Bigfoot, and whether your own arguments are for or against the matter, that doesn't change the outcome one bit. You may believe that 2+3=4 because your math professor said it was so...but that doesn't make it so. The other thing that continues to fascinate me is why spill so much digital ink on the P-G film? Why don't the doubters and skeptics invest their time on "Bigfoot" films made by Ivan Marx, Paul Freeman, or a great many more posted to YouTube? If it is a fake, why invest any amount of time on it? You might ask yourself why is it that the P-G film always bubbles to the top and not, for instance, the Freeman or Marx footage. The P-G film continues to taunt even after all this time. It evokes strong reactions.
What I find elevating in this book is here is someone who has worked in Hollywood as a makeup up artist, etc. and instead of making passing comments or talking points for television or newspaper consumption, Bill Munns single handedly launched a thorough investigation of this historic film and extracted information that no one knew before. So with his decades of make up artistry behind him, Bill concludes on page 476: "On this basis it can be concluded that the PGF Hominid is a biological primate fully organic in its appearance, and is not the result of a fur cloth costume worn by a human mime and attempting to appear as a real biological entity." It would be hard to diminish this statement drawn from years of experience, especially in light of the fact that Bill did many experiments to find answers to questions he posed to himself.
Prior to Bill Munns coming on the scene, no one knew the P-G film had 954 frames in it. The late René Dahinden, part owner of the film, always provided the number 952, and for those of you who have seen my personal e-mail address, you can be certain where that number came from. 952 frames in the entire P-G movie is wrong according to Bill Munns. A 954 frame count was discovered in the inventory process of the copy of the film in possession of Peter Byrne, a well known Bigfoot investigator. But I have heard that Byrne's copy comes from René Dahinden, so that would suggest that Dahinden's copy, obviously, must also have 954 frames. The only true confirmation of that number would come from a physical examination of the 16 millimeter camera original film.
Off topic for a moment, there are still things to be learned, even so many years after the film was shot. It wasn't until July 2012, by way of Bigfooter Steven Streufert from Willow Creek, California, did I learn that the store that Roger and Bob stopped at on the evening of October 20, 1967, to phone Al Hodgson about their film was on the south side of Highway 299 (Al's original store), not the north side, where the new store is located. It isn't a conspiracy of any sort, it is just one of those pesky facts that slipped through the cracks. The entire Bigfoot community just assumed the store that was in question was on the north side of the highway. In fact, in 1967, Al had a much smaller store, on the south side of the street. Often times this information is not widely distributed because people like Al Hodgson may have assumed that everyone already knew the variety store in question was located on the south side of Highway 299.
But getting back to reviewing the book. There are too many photos and illustrations. The author should have scaled down here considerably with only images that would illustrate his key points. Many of the images are of no value, like page 389. The images are far too small to have any visual effect on a reader. And the photo captions are hard to find, often blending in with the main text. Also, it doesn't seem like there are any photo credits to any of the images. For instance, on page 262 the image of the male bodybuilders is from The New Encyclopedia Of Modern Bodybuilding, 1998, by Arnold Schwarzenegger and published by Simon and Schuster. One gets the impression that many of the images were simply lifted from other sources and used without permission.
Then there is the matter of proof reading. Based on what I see, the book was never proofed. "Phillip Morris" on page 11 should read "Philip." On page 84 we see a "Raquel Welsh's fur bikini." Last I remember it was Raquel Welch and the movie is "One Million Years B.C." not "One Million B.C." On page 113: Roger's home town is noted as Yakima, Washington, which is not true. "proximate" should read "approximate" on page 134. On page 259 we are greeted with "the Oldivi Gorge region of Kenya, Africa." The last I remember that is the Olduvai Gorge and it is in Tanzania. You get the idea. For the super critical reviewer of Bill Munns' body of work, it would strongly suggest the author is careless in thought and writing. As the late René Dahinden used to opine, if you don't have the facts, your opinion is of no value.
On page 3 Bill writes, "the camera original footage was passed from Patterson to a film company, American National Enterprises (ANE)..." Munns should have been more accurate in his writing. The film was LOANED, not "passed," which might imply many things, even ownership. He goes on to write ANE went bankrupt and the "new owner had rightful physical possession." The camera original was a LOANED film, not something ANE ever purchased.
Bill Munns discusses the importance of the "film image data evidence, which is truly empirical and fine..." which proves to be a very salient point raised by the author. What is important is what is on that strip of film, the subject depicted in it, not the "backstory," which he likens to "...recollections of people are crappy evidence, and proves nothing because it's junk more so that [sic: than] fact." (Page 23.) So even if Roger Patterson spelled his name as "Rodger" instead of Roger or whether he didn't pay his camera rental bill or spend time with his kids, WHAT does that have to do with what is depicted on his film?
But getting back to truly empirical evidence, what proof do we have the P-G footage was shot on October 20, 1967 and not earlier? That date would have to be considered the "backstory," therefore, as per Munns' thinking, it belongs in the pile of junk recollections. But hold your horses! The backstory is very important in my view and can't be diminished the least bit. It was on that day in October that Roger and Bob came out of the woods and talked with Al Hodgson and told him this film was shot earlier in the day. That was the same day Roger spoke to the late reporter Al Tostado from the Eureka (California), Times-Standard, and news of the event was published one day later, on October 21st. Prior to this, on the old Bluff Creek Road next to the P-G film site, Lyle Laverty and his timber management crew were there just days earlier and did not see any trackway on the P-G film site. When Laverty returned to the P-G film site on Monday, October 23rd, he took slide pictures of freshly deposited human-like tracks. So the useless backstory, when looked at objectively, does have value and in some cases locks things in for times and dates. I could go on with backstory information, but why bother if Bill Munns states it is of little value.
The back story again. On page 310 the author discusses the "second reel," the film of the tracks left by the subject in the P-G film. So, prove to me, in fact, that the trackway footage is directly associated with the subject in the P-G film? In the 954 frames of the P-G film, we don't actually see the subject making tracks, we just assume the subject left them. Yet there is a detailed discussion about the second reel of the tracks left at the scene with pictures included. At one time René Dahinden stated we have no evidence those tracks are associated with the subject in the film. The author also raises his own concern: "...we cannot conclusively connect anything in the trackway footage to any landscape element of Bluff Creek in the PGF." Therefore, it follows you can't connect the dots of the filmed subject with the filmed trackway.
But hold your horses once more! On page 5 the author writes about Marlon Keith (MK) Davis, who "began to study the film and strongly advocated the film's authenticity and the reality of the filmed subject...he then went down a path of tabloid sensationalism." It was M.K. Davis, when he was more studious and serious about the P-G film, who showed, as about as empirical as one can get, that there are depressions in the sand bar, seemingly footprints, in the wake of the P-G subject as it moves forward. So I wouldn't dismiss M.K. Davis so quickly, as that discovery, and his stabilization of the P-G film (taking the jiggle out of the film) have been great advancements in the serious discussion of the film.
What is absolutely brilliant in this work by the author is his map making of where Roger is in association with the subject, showing the lay of the land. No one has dialed it in as precisely as Bill Munns. During his study and inventory of several copies of the film, the author again noticed something no one had before, the number of times the cameraman's finger came off (presumably slipped) the camera trigger. In his study and the empirical evidence of the film itself, there appears to be six segments to the film. To think that extraction from the film was still possible so late in the game is just amazing, and Bill has a very convincing discussion about the starts/stops of the film footage. Prior to Bill's study, a researcher from Vancouver, Washington, Larry Lund, in the late 1990s, had noticed this as well, but was not able to summarize his thought process into writing.
On page 76 the author writes: "In the year 2000, I was interviewed in a newspaper, and offered my opinion that I felt the PGF hominid was not a hoax." The author does no favor for the reader as you are not told what newspaper, and the exact quotation as well is not offered. As well, on page 89 and 90 he talks about the late Janos Prohaska, who wore gorilla suits for various television shows. He was also interviewed for a Bigfoot television documentary, talking about the P-G film, yet the author fails to quote what was stated. Prohaska was of the opinion if the P-G film was fabricated, it was one of the best he had ever seen. I think the author should have dabbled a bit about the IM Index as seen in the subject in the P-G film, yet there is no discussion on the matter. He should have focused, too, more on the subject's height, and what percentage of the human population grow to that height. And he should have invested more time in the nature of the subject's gait (walk).
The author writes at length at how harsh his critics have been on his work. See page 349, "...those who criticize me..." yet I have yet to find an example in this book as to who these critics might be, even by their screen names they might use in various Internet discussion groups, such as the Bigfoot Forums. His two page index for the entire book (which is just short of 500 pages) is absolutely appalling. For those who have purchased or plan on purchasing this book, When Roger Met Patty, I would have to say you are buying an unfinished draft. Perhaps the author should shorten and tidy up the sum of his work and consolidate his thinking into something like 200 pages. The photos and image credits need improvement.
However, in the end I find myself at the scientific crossroads. Science (real science) is about or partly about the process of replication. When something is demonstrated to the scientific community, other scientists want to know how it is done. The recipe, if I may. And then they try to duplicate the results, like, for instance, super tough screen glass for a smart phone that will not scratch or break.
So I would say the same for this enigmatic footage from Bluff Creek, California. Yet the fact remains, after nearly 47 years and many attempts (several seen on television) no one has been able to replicate the subject seen in Roger Patterson's home movie. If he faked the P-G film, after all these years no one, not even Hollywood, has cooked up a better recipe.
Think about that for a moment.
By itself, that should speak volumes to both armchair buffs and those who have researched the film extensively.
***********************
I guess a lot of people read my book reviews and Gene Baade reviewed my review and it might offer readers greater insight to what I have already written. Here it is:
Dear Daniel,
On my desk for two weeks has
been your latest issue (October) of Bigfoot Times. Of course I keyed on
your lengthy review of Bill Munns' book, with the indication of more to
come. Such a lengthy review suggests to me that you regard his book as
highly important, which I think it is.
I also mulled over what I wanted to say to you that would both affirm some of the things you had written in the review, and question other things you had written, but in a respectful way that shows that I value our relationship and I value your work and contribution. My sensitivity recognizes that the minor and insignificant research in the field that I have carried out cannot be compared with your decades of work and writing.
I also mulled over what I wanted to say to you that would both affirm some of the things you had written in the review, and question other things you had written, but in a respectful way that shows that I value our relationship and I value your work and contribution. My sensitivity recognizes that the minor and insignificant research in the field that I have carried out cannot be compared with your decades of work and writing.
When we exchanged a couple of emails a few weeks ago after your comments in a previous issue of BT announcing a future review of the book, I commented on your criticism of Munns' not waiting until the 50th anniversary. As you have once again expressed your bafflement over Munns publishing his book in 2014, I am compelled to elaborate on what I said earlier, and address a couple of other points you bring out in your review.
I TITLE AND PUBLICATION
As
I stated a few weeks ago, "47" years in the title is a "plus" - it's an
eye catcher much more than the common commemorative type anniversary
numbers (25, 50, 75, 100). Think, 12 Years A Slave and perhaps many
other books with non-traditional anniversary years. Plus, as my wife,
Joyce, pointed out, 47 is a prime number and thus exceptional.
As to waiting three years to publish something, I feel that when one has finished a project, even if the research goes on, if the present research is already compelling and for all intents and purposes complete, why wait 3 years to publish it? That makes no sense when the content should be shared as soon as possible, and when it actually took 7 years to formulate the content. To wait for the 50th anniversary suggests that the anniversary, itself, is more important than the information and analysis completed and ready to be published. Waiting suggests placing a publicity value above an actual content value. Hollywood loves publicity value. Research loves actual value, even if it sometimes is prompted by major anniversaries.
Also, a lot can happen in 3 years to a person. Any of us, including the author, can die within the next three years. If the book is ready now, publish it while one is still living. Note: I HOPE the author will live a long time! My point is that anything can happen and we should reap rewards for our work today as much as possible, and not waiting a long time.
As to waiting three years to publish something, I feel that when one has finished a project, even if the research goes on, if the present research is already compelling and for all intents and purposes complete, why wait 3 years to publish it? That makes no sense when the content should be shared as soon as possible, and when it actually took 7 years to formulate the content. To wait for the 50th anniversary suggests that the anniversary, itself, is more important than the information and analysis completed and ready to be published. Waiting suggests placing a publicity value above an actual content value. Hollywood loves publicity value. Research loves actual value, even if it sometimes is prompted by major anniversaries.
Also, a lot can happen in 3 years to a person. Any of us, including the author, can die within the next three years. If the book is ready now, publish it while one is still living. Note: I HOPE the author will live a long time! My point is that anything can happen and we should reap rewards for our work today as much as possible, and not waiting a long time.
II PROOFING AND ERRORS
I
agreed with you that having extra proofing in the book would have been
beneficial, but I didn't think the number of errors was terrible,
especially for a self-published book. We can certainly have an honest
disagreement on that. But I think some of the errors you point out are
quite trivial and have little or nothing to do with the actual content
of the book. They don't alter the message and intent of the book. I
find that, usually, only large press or university press books are free
from typos and similar errors - but they sometimes also make other
name-place errors like self-published books do. But, Daniel,
criticizing the spelling of "tent pole" (a transposition of two letters
to "tentploe"), really? Also, to compare the location of a decimal
point in a financial number is like comparing minnows to elephants. A
simple typo really doesn't matter and is not in the same league as a
bank error on dollar amounts.
However, if your criticism of proofing and spelling errors is important in your opinion, I should point out that in that same issue of BT, on page 3, column 3, 11 lines up, you spell Gimlin "Gimlet." With your criticism of small typos, I fear you have set your own writing up in a way to criticism that would otherwise be unreasonable.
I remember what Ben Franklin said about spelling errors and typos when publishing, that we always endeavor to get them right. But, he may have implied that some contexts and words are far more critical than others. He pointed out one Bible passage regarding the day of resurrection: "In the twinkling of an eye, ... we shall all be changed." (I Corinthians 15: 52) Drop the "c" and it will read, "we shall all be hanged." In that case, the typo vastly changes the meaning of the author.
However, if your criticism of proofing and spelling errors is important in your opinion, I should point out that in that same issue of BT, on page 3, column 3, 11 lines up, you spell Gimlin "Gimlet." With your criticism of small typos, I fear you have set your own writing up in a way to criticism that would otherwise be unreasonable.
I remember what Ben Franklin said about spelling errors and typos when publishing, that we always endeavor to get them right. But, he may have implied that some contexts and words are far more critical than others. He pointed out one Bible passage regarding the day of resurrection: "In the twinkling of an eye, ... we shall all be changed." (I Corinthians 15: 52) Drop the "c" and it will read, "we shall all be hanged." In that case, the typo vastly changes the meaning of the author.
III IMPORTANCE OF BACKSTORY
You address the importance of the backstory and criticize Munns' because
he more or less dismisses it as very important to the research he did.
I think you missed his point. His research was exclusively on the
evidence of and in the film - the film solely - and little or nothing
that preceded it or what fallowed, except what pertained to additional
footage, reels, copies, etc. You do make a good point on the added reel
on the footprints, but Munns agrees with you.
Munns' focus, pun intended, was this: What does the film and only the film reveal about the creature, the landscape as it pertains to the filming, and the cinematographer? For those joined and highly specific purposes, the backstory truly is not important. As an example, when a technician and surgeon examines and analyses the cat scans or X-rays of an injury inflicted on me by my wife, the reason for the fight I had with her before she clubbed me doesn't and shouldn't matter to him, nor the reconciliation we have afterwards. (Note: this didn't happen!). In theology and Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between "narrow" and "wide" interpretation. Munns is dealing with "narrow" interpretation, the film and only the film.
But, of course, as you point out, if we are doing what I would call a "wide" analysis, then that perspective does absolutely include the backstory, and it has high historical importance and is vastly interesting. Your work on it, as well as the fine study done by Murphy, addresses that "wide" analysis. But, in my humble opinion, Munns was correct in not trying to weave in the "backstory." For a "narrow" analysis, not even the date the PG film took place is important - this is only my opinion.
Munns' focus, pun intended, was this: What does the film and only the film reveal about the creature, the landscape as it pertains to the filming, and the cinematographer? For those joined and highly specific purposes, the backstory truly is not important. As an example, when a technician and surgeon examines and analyses the cat scans or X-rays of an injury inflicted on me by my wife, the reason for the fight I had with her before she clubbed me doesn't and shouldn't matter to him, nor the reconciliation we have afterwards. (Note: this didn't happen!). In theology and Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between "narrow" and "wide" interpretation. Munns is dealing with "narrow" interpretation, the film and only the film.
But, of course, as you point out, if we are doing what I would call a "wide" analysis, then that perspective does absolutely include the backstory, and it has high historical importance and is vastly interesting. Your work on it, as well as the fine study done by Murphy, addresses that "wide" analysis. But, in my humble opinion, Munns was correct in not trying to weave in the "backstory." For a "narrow" analysis, not even the date the PG film took place is important - this is only my opinion.
IV PHOTOS
I
could easily agree that the photos and illustrations in the book are of
poor quality, but Munns, realizing that, sends his readers to his
website for color photos. At the same time, he did choose to include
the photos in the book as best he could. I, personally, found that
while it was work to study the photos, especially in black and white, I
understood them, and I realized that the costs of publishing precluded
a larger, better, format.
V You give the author a great deal of
credit and praise for his research, pointing out such things as frame
352/354, his firm conclusions on the reality of the hominid, etc. You
do communicate in the midst of your criticism your appreciation for the
author's research.
Daniel, I encourage you to continue to do
important and critical work and continue to provide us with the wide
range of information you have month in and month out in BT. I enjoy
reading it and appreciate what you find and share. My critique of your
review suggests that we can all, myself included, hone and improve out
judgments and skills. I don't think anyone would disagree. I know it
must be hard to publish a monthly newsletter/paper with research and
printing demands, and there is something to be said by the free-ranging
method you employed when reviewing Munns' book. We can all re-write
until the cows come home, but sooner or later we have to publish what we
have. So, please take my critique as it is intended, to help make you
an even better writer and reviewer. God knows that I need help all the
time and am critiqued by my parishioners weekly as to my writings and my
sermons!
You have many gifts to offer our world of Bigfoot research - many gifts given, and many gifts to come.
My very best wishes,
Gene
Gene
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Mono Lake Bigfoot Footage
Bigfoot researchers trek into California's Sierra Nevada following
Native American stories and petroglyphs of a supposed family of hairy
man-beasts; they examine recently found footprint evidence and a
compelling 1991 video of a supposed Sasquatch encounter in Mono Lake.
The Mono Lake Bigfoot Footage
From Bigfoot Evidence:
Back in 2008, a science teacher from Orange County, California came forward and presented to the Bigfoot community one of the most intriguing footage of Bigfoot they had seen in a long time. The teacher said his family had viewed the vacation video privately for almost 20 years-- not knowing he had captured a possible Bigfoot until his daughter pointed it out to him. The home video was taken in 1991, around Mono Lake, near the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In the video, a large, hairy, upright figure can be seen walking between two rock formations near the shore.
Investigators suggest that the figure in the video shows either a Bigfoot, or someone in a Bigfoot costume. According to the BFRO, if it was a person, it would have been someone who was wearing a large, full-length brown fur coat with excessively long furry sleeves.
The witness submitted his report to the BFRO on May 9, 2008 (17 years after filming the creature). Based on his credibility as a high school science teacher with absolutely nothing to gain by releasing the tape-- the BFRO believes the film is authentic:
Below is the BFRO report from 2008:
The Mono Lake Bigfoot Footage
From Bigfoot Evidence:
Back in 2008, a science teacher from Orange County, California came forward and presented to the Bigfoot community one of the most intriguing footage of Bigfoot they had seen in a long time. The teacher said his family had viewed the vacation video privately for almost 20 years-- not knowing he had captured a possible Bigfoot until his daughter pointed it out to him. The home video was taken in 1991, around Mono Lake, near the base of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In the video, a large, hairy, upright figure can be seen walking between two rock formations near the shore.
Investigators suggest that the figure in the video shows either a Bigfoot, or someone in a Bigfoot costume. According to the BFRO, if it was a person, it would have been someone who was wearing a large, full-length brown fur coat with excessively long furry sleeves.
The witness submitted his report to the BFRO on May 9, 2008 (17 years after filming the creature). Based on his credibility as a high school science teacher with absolutely nothing to gain by releasing the tape-- the BFRO believes the film is authentic:
He is a science teacher at a high school in south Orange County, California. He has no incentive to fake this footage or to involve his family in an elaborate prank.
The animal seen strolling among the tufa spires appears to be upright and bipedal and muscular. It appears to have long arms and makes long strides with its legs. It does not appear to be a bear. It appears to be either a man in a bigfoot costume, or an actual bigfoot.
The profile of the cameraman, combined with the random circumstances of the videotaping, strongly suggest this is not a man in a costume -- not a hoax.
Below is the BFRO report from 2008:
On May 18, 1991, while on vacation in the Mammoth Lakes area in Northern California, my family took a short day hike to Mono Lake to do some sightseeing. It was overcast and very cold with a strong wind blowing. There was still snow on the surrounding peaks. Mono Lake is at the base of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
I do not recall the location at which we parked the car to begin our hike, but I do remember that ours was the only car in the parking area and that the spot was quite desolate. It was a cold Saturday morning and the area was deserted. At 9:17AM I began shooting VHS video footage of our trek, and after a short period of time we finally decided to leave because of the wind and cold. We went back to our hotel in June Lake, enjoyed the rest of the weekend and went home. The trip was quite uneventful (or so we assumed).
The tape went into our family home video collection and for 17 years, from 1991 to 2008, it has been watched countless times by family and friends. So much so that my kids have the dialog on much of the tape collection memorized. On April 19, 2008 my daughter (6 years old in the video and now 22) was watching the tape in the downstairs family room when she suddenly screamed out and began yelling for me to come downstairs. I thought something bad had happened and after racing down the staircase, found my daughter and my ex sitting in front of the television telling me to watch a segment from the tape. What I saw when we played it back made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. And it was something none of us had ever noticed in almost 17 years of watching this tape,
In the final few seconds of the Mono Lake segment just before I turned the camera off I caught something very large and black moving between two rock formations a short distance from where we had been hiking. It was completely black with no differentiation in color or texture and walked upright like a human but with a gate more like a primate. At first I thought it was a bear, but after going over the video many times and finally digitizing and sharpening it I am now unsure what to think. From examination of the footage of my family whose distance from the camera was comparable to that of the creature it is easy to see the distinct details and variation in clothing, hair, face and hands. In contrast, the creature caught on tape exhibits none of those distinctions.The shape of the body does not resemble a human. The head is too large and the arms are too long. And although it does resemble a bear at one particular angle in the clip, the stance and gate don't add up. It is an intriguing mystery.
That we were able to go for 17 years without noticing this event on the tape seems unbelievable, but in retrospect it actually makes some sense. The segment lasts for only a couple of seconds and the focus is on the lake and mountains which is what I must have been filming at the time. I didn't see it when I shot the tape and it has since gone unnoticed because one must really be looking for it to see it.
I am not a person who is prone to believing in conspiracy theories, alien abductions and bizarre events such as a purported Bigfoot sighting. I've seen various footage and photographs of Bigfoot/Sasquatch sightings over the years and have always been extremely skeptical of their authenticity. As an engineer who now teaches high school physics, I am highly educated and very level headed. If I see something I don't understand my natural reaction is to analyze it rationally using the scientific method. I do not jump to conclusions based on faulty hypotheses. So in this case, I will suspend judgment pursuant to further investigation. But having shown this video to family and friends whose opinions I trust, the overall reaction seems to be a unanimous "Bigfoot!!" Wishful thinking? Maybe. Maybe not. Either way it is very intriguing and definitely warrants further investigation.
Your opinion and assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Bigfoot Facts and Theories for Skeptics
Is Bigfoot real? For hundreds of years Bigfoot facts have been hard to come by.
Source: MorgueFile
Does Bigfoot Really Exist?
Bigfoot
is the most famous of the world’s mysterious creatures, and a real
celebrity among cryptids. Known as Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest,
Skunk Ape in the South, and various other monikers across North America,
Bigfoot is also the most widely dispersed creature of cryptozoology. In
fact, the beasty is so popular that certain cable television networks
have even found it worth their while to film reality programs about
Bigfoot researchers.
With all of this fame you’d think Bigfoot would be living the good life, but the Big Guy has a little problem: Despite all of this recent attention, a lot of people still don’t believe he exists.
It’s his own fault, really. All of that skulking around in the dark of the woods and refusing to stand still for a proper photo has taken its toll on his public image over the years. Fact is, the Bigfoot non-believers make some pretty good arguments for why our favorite bi-pedal man-ape is probably nothing more than a figment of our collective imagination, perhaps spurned on by the misidentification of known animals mixed with a dab of wishful thinking. They say Bigfoot is not real, and its tough to argue without solid evidence.
Are they right? Here we’ll take a look at some of the valid questions Bigfoot skeptics put forward, and see if any theories help to alleviate their concerns.
With all of this fame you’d think Bigfoot would be living the good life, but the Big Guy has a little problem: Despite all of this recent attention, a lot of people still don’t believe he exists.
It’s his own fault, really. All of that skulking around in the dark of the woods and refusing to stand still for a proper photo has taken its toll on his public image over the years. Fact is, the Bigfoot non-believers make some pretty good arguments for why our favorite bi-pedal man-ape is probably nothing more than a figment of our collective imagination, perhaps spurned on by the misidentification of known animals mixed with a dab of wishful thinking. They say Bigfoot is not real, and its tough to argue without solid evidence.
Are they right? Here we’ll take a look at some of the valid questions Bigfoot skeptics put forward, and see if any theories help to alleviate their concerns.
Why Hasn’t Anyone Found Bigfoot?
Obviously, this is the most glaring problem that cryptozoologists and
Sasquatch researchers face when trying to prove the point of their work
to the general public. Bigfoot is supposedly eight feet tall or more,
and weighs perhaps a thousand pounds. How in the world has such a
massive creature remained hidden for so long? It’s a fair question, but
perhaps there is an easy answer. In short: He hasn’t, really.
Bigfoot is spotted all over the place. From Washington State to Florida, and from Maine to California, there are dozens of reported Bigfoot sightings in the United States alone each year. There are usually a few pieces of visual evidence that crop up annually as well, along with plaster casts of footprints, scat and hair samples.
And these are the only the reported incidents. We can only speculate about how many more people have experiences but are hesitant to speak up. If these people were to come forward, would that double the number of alleged sightings? Triple it? Who knows.
So, Bigfoot really isn’t sneaking under our radar at all. He’s seen all the time, but we are talking about an extremely rare animal, so sightings will not be as common or predictable as we might like.
Bigfoot sightings occur around the world. Biologists and scientists have had hundreds of years to locate and study this critter, yet they have failed. Why?
Bigfoot is spotted all over the place. From Washington State to Florida, and from Maine to California, there are dozens of reported Bigfoot sightings in the United States alone each year. There are usually a few pieces of visual evidence that crop up annually as well, along with plaster casts of footprints, scat and hair samples.
And these are the only the reported incidents. We can only speculate about how many more people have experiences but are hesitant to speak up. If these people were to come forward, would that double the number of alleged sightings? Triple it? Who knows.
So, Bigfoot really isn’t sneaking under our radar at all. He’s seen all the time, but we are talking about an extremely rare animal, so sightings will not be as common or predictable as we might like.
Bigfoot sightings occur around the world. Biologists and scientists have had hundreds of years to locate and study this critter, yet they have failed. Why?
Why is Bigfoot So Rare?
We
know there are or were many animals in the United States that had been
decimated or killed off completely since Europeans came to the continent
hundreds of years ago. Back then, at a time when there was far less
communication and fewer people were able to read and write, perhaps
Sasquatch encounters were more common.
If early settlers living on the edge of the wilderness with little contact with civilization had killed off a large percentage of these animals there would be few official records of these incidents. In the absence of photography, written journals and news coverage all that would be left is stories. And we know these stories exist, not only because of the accounts of the early settlers but because of thousands of years of Native American lore.
Unfortunately, by the time science caught up with the New World, perhaps Bigfoot had already become extremely rare, even on the verge of extinction. But that doesn't necessarily mean people never knew about the creature; it just means there is no record.
Still, the skeptic’s argument has merit. Logically, if Sasquatch is real then biologists should be able to track him down and complete some proper study. Until that happens, there will always be questions, and any Bigfoot facts will be suspect.
The Patterson-Gimlin Film was shot in 1967, and is still considered the best documentation of Bigfoot we have today. In the clip below, Robert Gimlin talks to the Finding Bigfoot crew about the footage. Is it a hoax? You be the judge.
If early settlers living on the edge of the wilderness with little contact with civilization had killed off a large percentage of these animals there would be few official records of these incidents. In the absence of photography, written journals and news coverage all that would be left is stories. And we know these stories exist, not only because of the accounts of the early settlers but because of thousands of years of Native American lore.
Unfortunately, by the time science caught up with the New World, perhaps Bigfoot had already become extremely rare, even on the verge of extinction. But that doesn't necessarily mean people never knew about the creature; it just means there is no record.
Still, the skeptic’s argument has merit. Logically, if Sasquatch is real then biologists should be able to track him down and complete some proper study. Until that happens, there will always be questions, and any Bigfoot facts will be suspect.
The Patterson-Gimlin Film was shot in 1967, and is still considered the best documentation of Bigfoot we have today. In the clip below, Robert Gimlin talks to the Finding Bigfoot crew about the footage. Is it a hoax? You be the judge.
Why Hasn’t Anyone Found Bigfoot Bones or a Body?
So,
if Bigfoot is real he obviously has to be pretty tough to corner.
Assuming he's an intelligent creatures, adept at hiding and staying
clear of humans, perhaps he has simply evolved in such a way that makes
him ultra-stealthy. But what about the bodies? A live Bigfoot might be
pretty sneaky, but a dead one can’t move very far on its own. A Bigfoot
carcass should have been found by now.
In theory this makes a lot of sense, but there are a few problems here. Firstly, nothing dead lasts very long before nature breaks it down and recycles it. Any carcass that hits the forest floor decomposes within weeks, and bones are scattered far and wide. In a very short time there is no trace that a carcass ever existed on the spot.
In theory this makes a lot of sense, but there are a few problems here. Firstly, nothing dead lasts very long before nature breaks it down and recycles it. Any carcass that hits the forest floor decomposes within weeks, and bones are scattered far and wide. In a very short time there is no trace that a carcass ever existed on the spot.
Secondly, if Bigfoot is so super-rare to begin with, it would be extremely unlikely that a hiker or hunter would happen upon a Bigfoot body in the wild. Deer and bear carcasses are rare to stumble upon, and those are two abundant species.
But there should still be bones floating around somewhere, right? How come nobody has ever found a Bigfoot femur?
With Sasquatch, we’re talking about a very small population of animals that live perhaps as long, or longer, than humans. Deaths in the wild are rare, and therefore carcasses and bones are rare. It’s possible someone may have seen stray Bigfoot bones on occasion and dismissed them as some other animal, but finding bones strewn in the wilderness is probably much less likely than spotting a living creature. And we know how rare that is.
Some researchers think Bigfoot may bury their dead. This implies some interesting possibilities. Bigfoot may have some sort of culture, or even spiritualism, which dictates this practice.
Chimpanzees exhibit a primitive type of “spiritualism” where they will mourn losses and show reverence in certain situations. Or, perhaps Bigfoot is more closely related to humans than we realize. Interesting food for thought.
A hunter in a Ghillie Suit can look very Bigfoot-like.
Source: Ripperkon (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Why Hasn’t a Hunter Shot Bigfoot?
What
about hunters? Surely some trigger-happy deerslayer should have blown
away a Sasquatch by now! There are a few who have claimed to have done
just that, but of course they were not able to provide evidence.
However, this may not be as likely as you’d think (and as any hunter
would know) and here are a few reasons why:
- Hunters aren’t out there looking to shoot anything that moves; they are hunting a specific animal, and it isn’t Bigfoot. Of course, there are surely some maniacs out there who will shoot first and ask questions later, and woe to the Sasquatch that crosses their paths, but the great majority of hunters are very cautious about what they shoot.
- What looks like a Bigfoot could be some jerk in a costume, or another hunter in a Ghillie suit. This thought alone would make it tough for most hunters to pull the trigger. As much as some moron in a gorilla suit running around the forest during hunting season would have it coming, nobody wants to be a murderer.
- Speaking of murder, would you want to be the person who killed Sasquatch? Most hunters have a certain respect for the natural world, and blasting away at perhaps the rarest animal on the planet doesn’t sit well with them.
Where are the Bigfoot Fossils?
Okay,
so no living Bigfoot, and no dead Bigfoot. Bigfoot is extremely rare
and very elusive, and this is why nobody has captured one. Being rare,
and living a long life, means carcasses are hard to come by. Even bones
end up scattered, and if they actually bury their dead the situation
seems completely hopeless when it come to finding Sasquatch remains.
But even if all of that is true, if there really is a species of North American Ape running around in the woods of the United States and Canada, it seems to make sense that we should see proof of it in the fossil record. Bones or fossiles would be the easiest of Bigfoot facts to confirm. Even if nobody has found a live one, or a dead one, there must be evidence in the history of the continent, one would think.
But even if all of that is true, if there really is a species of North American Ape running around in the woods of the United States and Canada, it seems to make sense that we should see proof of it in the fossil record. Bones or fossiles would be the easiest of Bigfoot facts to confirm. Even if nobody has found a live one, or a dead one, there must be evidence in the history of the continent, one would think.
Even after a million years on this Earth, the only fossil evidence
Gigantopithecus left behind is a few teeth and jawbone fragments.
![Durova (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGigantopithecusjaw.jpg){kind=link}
Maybe not. To put it in perspective, let’s take a look at Gigantopithecus Blacki,
an ancient species of ape that went extinct thousands of years ago.
Gigantopithecus Blacki stood ten feet tall and weighed half a ton. Sound
familiar?
Giganto lived in Asia, but some people think it may have crossed the Bering Land Bridge to North American around the same time as humans, and evolved into what we now know as Bigfoot. This would have been around 20,000 years ago.
That’s a long time. We could speculate that over 20,000 years there ought to be fossil evidence left in North America of such a creature, but of course there is none. That seems telling, until we look at the fossil evidence for Giganto in Asia.
During approximately one million years of occupation, Gigantopithecus Blacki has left behind only a few fossilized teeth and mandible fragments. No large bones, no skulls, no full skeletons, nothing else in the fossil record to tell us this creature existed for a million years.
We know Gigantopithecus Blacki lived in Asia for a million years, yet there is almost no fossil evidence. Looking at it that way, it certainly seems possible that there could be any number of large mammals that live or have lived in North America for which we have no fossil record.
Of course, Bigfoot-Giganto Theory has a few holes in it, most glaringly the fact that Giganto is presumed to have gone extinct many thousands of years before the Bering Land Bridge was most recently accessible. Still, it is a good illustration at just how much the fossil record is lacking, and how a rare animal like Bigfoot could slip right through.
Giganto lived in Asia, but some people think it may have crossed the Bering Land Bridge to North American around the same time as humans, and evolved into what we now know as Bigfoot. This would have been around 20,000 years ago.
That’s a long time. We could speculate that over 20,000 years there ought to be fossil evidence left in North America of such a creature, but of course there is none. That seems telling, until we look at the fossil evidence for Giganto in Asia.
During approximately one million years of occupation, Gigantopithecus Blacki has left behind only a few fossilized teeth and mandible fragments. No large bones, no skulls, no full skeletons, nothing else in the fossil record to tell us this creature existed for a million years.
We know Gigantopithecus Blacki lived in Asia for a million years, yet there is almost no fossil evidence. Looking at it that way, it certainly seems possible that there could be any number of large mammals that live or have lived in North America for which we have no fossil record.
Of course, Bigfoot-Giganto Theory has a few holes in it, most glaringly the fact that Giganto is presumed to have gone extinct many thousands of years before the Bering Land Bridge was most recently accessible. Still, it is a good illustration at just how much the fossil record is lacking, and how a rare animal like Bigfoot could slip right through.
What Does Bigfoot Eat?
Bigfoot is a large creature, and has to eat something to survive. Probably a lot of
something. Diet and the amount of available food is another subject
that makes some people skeptical of Bigfoot. Whether Bigfoot evolved
from Gigantopithecus Blacki or some other great ape, or whether it is
more closely related to humans, the fact is that a population of such
huge creatures is going to require enormous amounts of food.
Modern chimpanzees hunt, and they can be very aggressive. What about Bigfoot?
![Ikiwaner (Own work) [GFDL 1.2], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGombe_Stream_NP_Beute.jpg){kind=link}
People
think of Giganto as a big gorilla, like King Kong, but it was probably
more closely related to modern Orangutans. If you can get a picture of a
ten-foot Orangutan in your mind it likely doesn’t look much like the
stealthy, sure-footed Sasquatch we’ve all heard about. Orangs are
foragers, and so likely was Giganto, dining on bamboo and other
vegetation. If Bigfoot is similar, it’s hard to imagine the
deciduous/coniferous forests of North America would provide enough
sustenance in the winter months.
Elk and Moose are grazers that live in rough climates. Would the types of food they consume be adequate for a Bigfoot population? Grizzly bears are massive creatures, but they hibernate their way through the long, cold winter. What’s Bigfoot’s trick?
If Bigfoot did evolve from Giganto, it must have changed drastically in appearance, behavior and food preferences. Indeed, some researchers believe Sasquatch may even hunt animals as large as deer and elk to supplement its diet with meat. That would certainly help in northern climates where there is sparse vegetation for many months of the year. But does it make any sense?
While many ape species (including Orangs) do consume insects as part of their diets, and chimpanzees are known to hunt monkeys and other small animals, the only living hominids that routinely take down game of this magnitude are humans.
This brings us back to considering Bigfoot as a closer relative to us on the family tree. If Bigfoot does hunt, kill and consume large game we must assume it is capable of at least a fair amount of aggression. Maybe it is using tools or some kind as hunting weapons, perhaps something as rudimentary as large rocks or sticks.
Is it possible Bigfoot might even attack humans? Should we fear Bigfoot? Facts on this are sketchy, but there seems to be no reasons to prepare for a Bigfoot mauling when you enter the woods.
But this is all speculation, of course. The skeptic’s argument makes sense. We can assume an adult Sasquatch would need thousands of calories each day to survive the rough northern winters, but we also don’t know if it might, for instance, enter into periods of torpor or even hibernate for several months.
Elk and Moose are grazers that live in rough climates. Would the types of food they consume be adequate for a Bigfoot population? Grizzly bears are massive creatures, but they hibernate their way through the long, cold winter. What’s Bigfoot’s trick?
If Bigfoot did evolve from Giganto, it must have changed drastically in appearance, behavior and food preferences. Indeed, some researchers believe Sasquatch may even hunt animals as large as deer and elk to supplement its diet with meat. That would certainly help in northern climates where there is sparse vegetation for many months of the year. But does it make any sense?
While many ape species (including Orangs) do consume insects as part of their diets, and chimpanzees are known to hunt monkeys and other small animals, the only living hominids that routinely take down game of this magnitude are humans.
This brings us back to considering Bigfoot as a closer relative to us on the family tree. If Bigfoot does hunt, kill and consume large game we must assume it is capable of at least a fair amount of aggression. Maybe it is using tools or some kind as hunting weapons, perhaps something as rudimentary as large rocks or sticks.
Is it possible Bigfoot might even attack humans? Should we fear Bigfoot? Facts on this are sketchy, but there seems to be no reasons to prepare for a Bigfoot mauling when you enter the woods.
But this is all speculation, of course. The skeptic’s argument makes sense. We can assume an adult Sasquatch would need thousands of calories each day to survive the rough northern winters, but we also don’t know if it might, for instance, enter into periods of torpor or even hibernate for several months.
Where Does Bigfoot Live?
Everywhere,
it seems. One of the problems a lot of skeptics have with Sasquatch
sightings is the wide range of habitat and territory they seem to cover.
When we consider the deep, rarely-trodden woodlands of the Pacific
Northwest, or the dark and foreboding swamplands of the south, it’s easy
to imagine Bigfoot or any other unknown animal making a home there,
well protected from the meddling of humans.
The eastern subspecies of the cougar has been declared extinct, but
many believe it still exists. Like Bigfoot, it is a rare and elusive
animal.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But
Bigfoot sightings occur all over the place, not just in remote areas.
Bigfoot is even seen in older, more densely populated eastern states
like Ohio, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey and Maryland. These states do possess significant gamelands
and forests, but they are also well-explored and thoroughly mapped. How
could a creature this large slip past biologists and researchers, not to
mention hunters, for hundreds of years?
To get an idea of how it might be possible, let’s take a look at the story of the Eastern Cougar. Like in the western part of the country, cougars were once prevalent in the east. Because of their dangerous nature, it didn’t take long for settlers and early colonists to decide they were better gone than here. So, for a few hundred years cougars were killed on sight, until one day there were none.
Today, according to agencies like U.S. Fish and Wildlife, there are no more cougars in the east. But you don’t have to look far to find someone who knows someone, who has a brother, who once talked to someone who saw a cougar firsthand while hunting in the east. If you look a little harder you might even find the source of the sighting, and they’ll swear what they saw was not a bobcat, but a real cougar. There are even bodies of cougars allegedly shot or hit by cars in the east.
Cougars are very elusive animals, and if they still exist in the east their population is very small. Yet people see them, and report their sightings all the time. Just like Bigfoot. If we factor in Bigfoot’s presumed intelligence level, which must be far greater than a cougar’s, it makes sense that it would be even harder to spot, capture and document. Bigfoot isn’t likely to get hit by a car any more than a person would, and he’s going to be smarter at finding hiding spots that a cougar.
If it is plausible that cougars could still exist in the east, as many believe, it’s also plausible that the same woods could conceal another extremely rare animal.
To get an idea of how it might be possible, let’s take a look at the story of the Eastern Cougar. Like in the western part of the country, cougars were once prevalent in the east. Because of their dangerous nature, it didn’t take long for settlers and early colonists to decide they were better gone than here. So, for a few hundred years cougars were killed on sight, until one day there were none.
Today, according to agencies like U.S. Fish and Wildlife, there are no more cougars in the east. But you don’t have to look far to find someone who knows someone, who has a brother, who once talked to someone who saw a cougar firsthand while hunting in the east. If you look a little harder you might even find the source of the sighting, and they’ll swear what they saw was not a bobcat, but a real cougar. There are even bodies of cougars allegedly shot or hit by cars in the east.
Cougars are very elusive animals, and if they still exist in the east their population is very small. Yet people see them, and report their sightings all the time. Just like Bigfoot. If we factor in Bigfoot’s presumed intelligence level, which must be far greater than a cougar’s, it makes sense that it would be even harder to spot, capture and document. Bigfoot isn’t likely to get hit by a car any more than a person would, and he’s going to be smarter at finding hiding spots that a cougar.
If it is plausible that cougars could still exist in the east, as many believe, it’s also plausible that the same woods could conceal another extremely rare animal.
The Conclusion . . .
Even
though there is plenty of evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, in the
absence of a living specimen, a body or even fragments of a carcass it’s
impossible to say definitively that there is a rare species of hominid
running around the woods of North America. And there have been plenty of
pranksters willing to hoax Bigfoot evidence over the years. Those skeptics who say Bigfoot it not real have some solid ground on which to make their point.
Still, many people believe Bigfoot is really out there.
The problem is, with science belief should have nothing to do with it. Science is based on information and logic, not whimsy and wishes. Ultimately, it’s up to the individual to decide if the available evidence and arguments are compelling enough to support the existence of such a creature.
The skeptics will say no. Without cold, hard facts and indisputable evidence Bigfoot is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Sasquatch researchers will counter that the available evidence had to come from somewhere, and there is simply too much information out there to ignore. Just because we don’t have all the pieces yet doesn’t mean we should give up on the puzzle.
Some may argue that there can be no such thing as “Bigfoot facts” when studying a creature like this. While that may be true in the sense that we have no animals to study, there certainly are facts and evidence that accompany the Bigfoot phenomenon.
It’s a fact that people are routinely claiming to see a large, bipedal ape-like creature all across North America. It is a fact that a certain amount of evidence has been collected which suggests the existence of the creature. Like any evidence, it must all be weighed carefully to come up with a conclusion.
So, where do you stand? Is Bigfoot real, or only a myth?
Source (Visit the page to take a Bigfoot poll):
http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Bigfoot-Real-Bigfoot-Facts-and-Theories-for-Skeptics#
Still, many people believe Bigfoot is really out there.
The problem is, with science belief should have nothing to do with it. Science is based on information and logic, not whimsy and wishes. Ultimately, it’s up to the individual to decide if the available evidence and arguments are compelling enough to support the existence of such a creature.
The skeptics will say no. Without cold, hard facts and indisputable evidence Bigfoot is no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Sasquatch researchers will counter that the available evidence had to come from somewhere, and there is simply too much information out there to ignore. Just because we don’t have all the pieces yet doesn’t mean we should give up on the puzzle.
Some may argue that there can be no such thing as “Bigfoot facts” when studying a creature like this. While that may be true in the sense that we have no animals to study, there certainly are facts and evidence that accompany the Bigfoot phenomenon.
It’s a fact that people are routinely claiming to see a large, bipedal ape-like creature all across North America. It is a fact that a certain amount of evidence has been collected which suggests the existence of the creature. Like any evidence, it must all be weighed carefully to come up with a conclusion.
So, where do you stand? Is Bigfoot real, or only a myth?
Source (Visit the page to take a Bigfoot poll):
http://cryptid.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Bigfoot-Real-Bigfoot-Facts-and-Theories-for-Skeptics#
More on Bigfoot:
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Finding Bigfoot 'Bama Bigfoot' Video
In this free episode of Finding Bigfoot the team placed stocky 6'4" James "Bobo" Fay at the same location as the pictured figure. Comparing the two it appeared to be 8 and a half feet tall. As Ranae Holland argued, this could be accounted for by tree growth. Matt Moneymaker argued that the tree width had not changed and showed the figure was nearly twice as wide. He's off on that estimate from what I can tell. That all said, a medium for tree growth is 13 to 24” of growth per year, which still leaves the original figure's height above Bobo's who is taller than most humans. Furthermore, the witnesses were deemed credible and have experienced so much purported Sasquatch activity in the area that they've named it Creepy Mountain. This one is high in my possible pile.
Friday, September 12, 2014
All About Bigfoot: Strange Cryptids of the Ohio Valley - Sat. 1pm Shenago Valley Library in Sharon, PA
 |
| CLICK PICTURES TO ENLARGE |
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Bigfoot Country Oregon USA
Published on Sep 9, 2014
Photos taken by the Perrys of Bigfoot Ballyhoo while searching for bigfoot tracks in their beautiful state of Oregon. Enjoy many more beautiful photos on their bigfoot site at www.bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com
Photos taken by the Perrys of Bigfoot Ballyhoo while searching for bigfoot tracks in their beautiful state of Oregon. Enjoy many more beautiful photos on their bigfoot site at www.bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Bigfoot Arm Found In Florida? After Hours with Rictor (The #1 Bigfoot Webcast): Stacy Brown Jr's Skunkape Investigation
Published on Sep 8, 2014
Recently the southern bros have come upon something worthy of discussion and testing. It's not a blob-squatch and it isn't a thermal video, but actual physical evidence that can be analyzed and tested. It's an appendage of sorts that has taken the bigfoot community by storm. Stacy reveals to us on the show what exactly it is.
Joining Rictor and Tammy is the professor of anthropology, Dr. Todd Disotell from New York University to evaluate the evidence. Science, hard work, and enthusiasm all come together in this exciting webcast!
Be sure to check out Stacy and Dave's website: http://www.thesasquatchhunters.com
You can hangout with us on our very own Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/After...
And you can see more webcasts, articles and learn more about your hosts by visiting our website at: http://afterhourswithrictor.com
Petitioning New York Governor/President Barack Obama to Enact a Law including Sasquatch / Bigfoots to the Endangered Species list.
I respectfully request that a law be enacted
including Sasquatch / Bigfoots on the New York State and National
endangered species list.
From creating a Bigfoot convention
three years ago as a special event to bring in tourism to Chautauqua
County, New York. I have had sixteen eyewitnesses from Chautauqua County
contact me resolving themselves in knowing they've seen a Bigfoot but
are afraid to tell most anyone for fear of ridicule. Five eyewitnesses
from Cattaraugus County to our East and more then six eyewitnesses from
Warren County, PA to our South.
The first documented sighting of a
Bigfoot was in a newspaper article in Sackets Harbor, New York in 1818
of a large hairy wild man seen in the area. There are more then 100
documented sightings in New York State and more then 200 in Ohio as well
as many other States including Hawaii...
I believe Bigfoots are as real as
panthers, bear, and deer and are deserving of a endangered / protected
species status because they are so rare and more then likely, part
humanoid.
We feel it is important that New
York State and the United States of America recognizes the danger these
creatures are in and helps to do something about it. Without our help
to protect them, Sasquatch / Bigfoots will continue to be hunted versus
living in peace and harmony as all other endangered species do today in
the USA.
Click HERE to sign the petition and for more info.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Beyond Belief: Proving Bigfoot with Rhettman Mullis (April 2014)
Beyond Belief: Proving Bigfoot with Rhettman Mullis (April 2014)
Is there a smarter way to prove that Bigfoot exists, other than trapping and killing it? Despite the lack of definitive proof, researchers believe that they can understand how Bigfoot behaves and communicates. It may even be possible to make contact and get the proof we need. Rhettman Mullis recounts tales of tracking this elusive creature and reveals how he may one day prove the existence of Bigfoot in this interview with George Noory originally webcast April 23, 2014.
In the summer of 1977, Rhettman A. Mullis Jr. saw his first Bigfoot swimming in the Puget Sound. That started his journey as a Bigfoot researcher. Over the next 36 years, he would continue to spend time studying accounts of Bigfoot. He currently heads, Bigfootology, which is a global team of scientists and field experts dedicated to the study of the global Bigfoot phenomenon using modern scientific technology, processes, and the multidisciplinary approach to research and problem solving.
Instructor/Host: George Noory
Featuring:
Rhettman A. Mullis Jr.
Season 3, Episode 33
Available worldwide
Runtime: (30:31)
Available worldwide
Runtime: (30:31)
Is there a smarter way to prove that Bigfoot exists, other than trapping and killing it? Despite the lack of definitive proof, researchers believe that they can understand how Bigfoot behaves and communicates. It may even be possible to make contact and get the proof we need. Rhettman Mullis recounts tales of tracking this elusive creature and reveals how he may one day prove the existence of Bigfoot in this interview with George Noory originally webcast April 23, 2014.
In the summer of 1977, Rhettman A. Mullis Jr. saw his first Bigfoot swimming in the Puget Sound. That started his journey as a Bigfoot researcher. Over the next 36 years, he would continue to spend time studying accounts of Bigfoot. He currently heads, Bigfootology, which is a global team of scientists and field experts dedicated to the study of the global Bigfoot phenomenon using modern scientific technology, processes, and the multidisciplinary approach to research and problem solving.
Instructor/Host: George Noory
Featuring:
Rhettman A. Mullis Jr.
Video Language: English
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Rancher believes he is having Bigfoot activity at his cabin in Sasquatch Canyon
Published on Sep 1, 2014
Summary of a Rancher's recent
possible Bigfoot experience's at his cabin in the mouth of the 35 mile
canyon. The surrounding community has been calling the canyon "Sasquatch
Canyon" since the 1970s.
Monday, September 1, 2014
'In Search Of ' Playlist
RabbitTV.com Overview:
The program conducted investigations into the controversial and paranormal (e.g., UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster). Additionally, it featured episodes about mysterious historical events and personalities such as Anna Anderson/Grand Duchess Anastasia, the Lincoln Assassination, the Jack the Ripper murders, infamous cults (e.g. Jim Jones), and missing persons, cities, and ships (e.g., Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, D. B. Cooper, the Mary Celeste, the Titanic, the lost Roanoke Colony). Because the show often presented offbeat subjects and controversial theories, each episodes opening credits included a verbal disclaimer about the conjectural nature of the evidence and theories to be presented.
Two Full Free Monster Quest Episodes on Sasquatch
Legends of a terrifying monster lurking in the back hills of Kentucky date back to the days of frontiersman Daniel Boone, but encounters with this mystery beast are increasing. The MonsterQuest team analyzes the evidence and heads deep into the dark forests.
Click HERE to watch.
Related:
Not Even Ranae Can Explain This One!
This evidence is so convincing that our residentThis evidence is so convincing that our resident skeptic Ranae can't even come up with a theory for what it may be ... other than a Bigfoot!can't even come up with a theory for what it may be ... other than a Bigfoot!
Related:
The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'
Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot - The Brown Footage
Related:
The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'
Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot - The Brown Footage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)