Bob Heironimus claims to have been the Bigfoot depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film
The Patterson-Gimlin film's authenticityis supported by a full Professor of anatomy and anthropology and expert on foot morphology
along with locomotion in primates, Dr. Jeff Meldrum. In this videohe takes on debunking
arguments and explains why the 10 footprint casts collected at the
site solidifies the case that the figure in the video is a real
How to tell a Bigfoot from a man in a monkey-suit, finally! (No, I'm not kidding)
misspoke when I said "look how long Patty's arm is compared to Bob's."
It's not longer, it's just that her shoulder placement is SO MUCH lower
than ours, it makes her arms look longer. That and her catcher's
mitt-sized hands. So the fact that her arms (scaled down to our size)
are the same length as ours makes arm extensions even more ridiculous.
some believe that the suit is worn lower to make the legs look shorter.
Which is also ridiculous! That would throw her "thigh-to-shin" ratio
off, making her thigh look way too short compared to her shin. Give up -
ratios win :)
Bottom line: suits can ADD bulk or length, but
they can't subtract. And looking at Patty, scaled down to Bob's size,
her shoulders appear to be much, much lower on her frame than his. Suits
can't do that.
Here we explore the difference between our walk and whomever or whatever it was walking in the Patterson Bigfoot Film.
This week, the team splits into four groups to cover more ground in Idaho. Matt and his partner Rob meet with two witnesses who claim to have seen a large figure - along with tracks - up on a hill near a casino in Idaho. Watch Sunday @ 10 PM E/P.
Whatever it is, folks over at the Anaheim Hills Buzz Facebook group are going ape trying to decipher the mysterious video shot in a quiet neighborhood shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday.
As of Thursday morning, more than 100 Buzzers had posted comments on Facebook speculating about the footage.
Brian Ogawa provided a copy of the video to the Register and
explained how it was shot by his friend, who has asked to remain
"The purpose of the video was to record the coyotes coming into the
community," he said. "We have been having a lot of them coming in, and
he was recording them using a game camera inside his car. The camera was
on, facing west of Brightstar on the corner of Sundance in Anaheim
Hills. We have no idea what is it, and both of us are getting a kick out
of it and what kind of 'buzz' its making."
Post Halloween prankster or supernatural sighting? You decide.
A local man in Fairbanks captured some very interesting footprints on video a while back, which Ranae and Cliff can't agree on. | For more Finding Bigfoot, visit http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/...
post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the
cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto
Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of
unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.
Bigfoot - Evidence, No Evidence and Debunkers
When talking about Bigfoot one can expect to get some raised eyebrows
and maybe a few smirks. But mention that you have actually encountered
the elusive creature and/or found evidence to support it and many people
will quickly start calling you crazy, delusional or ask what drugs you
are on. In other words they really bring into question your character.
The Bigfoot research field is full of lovable, but wacky people who have
good intentions but see 92 bigfoot in every photograph. So the label of
delusional might fit in some cases. I think some of them know there is
nothing in their photos and they just do it to cause a stir or get
attention, or maybe it's just for kicks.
The people most difficult to deal with are the people who hide behind
the façade of being a true bigfoot believer and/or researcher, but
continually discredit any and all evidence. They are the ones that say
there is no evidence or proof of bigfoot and they use the same
old rehearsed lines we all have heard many times over. They join Bigfoot
group after Bigfoot group and follow the topic heavily. Any evidence
that is presented is quickly shot down and statements made about no real
If someone states they have actually seen a Bigfoot, these phony Bigfoot
Debunking believers quickly tell them they were mistaken and that it
was probably a bear or tree stump. This could just be a play to get a
"debate" started. They attempt to debunk any and all evidence, all the
while saying they believe in Bigfoot and have years of experience and
vast knowledge of ....well everything.
The thing is, they don't understand what constitutes evidence or what is considered evidence.
Lets look at three types of evidence - 1. Circumstantial evidence 2. Direct evidence and 3. Shoe and Tire Tread evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence - is evidence that relies on
an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint
at the scene of a crime, or in this case a Bigfoot track at a sighting
area. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so
that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may
more strongly support one particular inference over another. An
explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as
proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Now the reason I brought this up is that these Bigfoot debunkers always
dismiss witness testimony. This brings us to Direct evidence.
Direct Evidence - Testimony can be direct evidence
or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime
take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness
saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By
contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house,
that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a
bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.
So, if we have a creditable witness that says they saw a Bigfoot, this
is direct evidence and should not be dismissed. Of course, the
creditability of the witness can be questioned but when it comes to
Bigfoot there have been witnesses from all walks of life including
Policemen, Ministers, Firefighters, and many more good common down to
earth people. Yet it is all dismissed by these Bigfoot believing
Another type of evidence I want to cover is Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence.
Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence - Evidence which falls within
this category includes shoes, tires, plaster casts, prints, and
photographs of shoe or tire prints and impressions.
Shoe or tire "prints" are of a two-dimensional nature, having
length and width. These are commonly found on pieces of paper as
dust prints or can be made by tracking through mediums such as
blood, water, oil, and dirt.
Shoe or tire "impressions" are three-dimensional in nature,
having length, width, and height. This type of evidence is usually
found in soil and is collected and reserved by the use of a plaster
But yet, plaster casting of Bigfoot tracks are, for the most part,
dismissed by these debunkers. They always say they are faked. Again,
witness creditability would come into play.
Now, looking at these three types of evidence, it is very clear there IS
plenty of evidence surrounding Bigfoot, now whether you accept it or
not is on you but don't say there is no evidence when in fact there is a
lot of it.
Also, don't kid yourself, the government and some scientist have to know
about Bigfoot. I just can't see a way that they couldn't.
But I have to ask, does it really matter or make a difference if Bigfoot
is recognized by science, the general public or the government?
Would it mean that there would be more bigfoot? I'm sure it would have
some positive and some negative effects, most of them directly effecting
Bigfoot itself. Would the government, science or the general public
recognizing Bigfoot change what you saw? Other than feeling
validated, it would not change the fact of what you saw. Many hair
samples have been tested over the years. Some results came back as
"Unknown" or "Unknown primate", did it change anything? Not really.
It's just funny how some people go to great lengths telling others what they saw or didn't see.
While I do like science and trust science for the most part, but it does
not have all the answers. I'll take an actual experience over science
just about every time. Would you rather have a doctor who had only
read books but never preformed a heart surgery working on you or the guy
who had preformed over 1000 heart operations. Maybe not the best
example because doctors have to do both but it should illustrate that
experience is the best teacher. I often use this example, it's like
someone who has never ate an apple telling you what one taste and
feels like, it's just not the same as the person who has actually ate an
In many cases it is just going to take having a personal experience or sighting of a Bigfoot to convince some people.
But the question remains, Why would people, who say they believe
in Bigfoot go to such great lengths to try and prove it don't
exist? Could they be party of some attempt to discredit belief in
Bigfoot? We have seen this for years in the UFO community. Could it be
that these people just like to argue and fight on the Internet? Maybe in
some cases. Could some of these debunkers be hired or work for some
disinformation or discrediting agency? I think it is possible, it was
done and now admitted to, in the UFO community. Watch the movieMirage Men, it tells about it.
Now, here is my pitch of a TV show idea - We get a judge, a jury, and
some lawyers and put Bigfoot on trial. We have the "Skeptics and
Debunkers" Vs. the "Believers and Researchers". Both sides would present
evidence, witnesses and experts, the jury would come back with a
verdict, is Bigfoot Real or Fake? I'm sure the answer would be "The jury
finds that there is sufficient evidence leading to the conclusion
that Bigfoot is indeed Real!" Sounds like a good show to me. (I'll take a 20 Percent lifetime royalty, please)
I guess in the end it really don't matter, at lest to me. No amount of
doubt, belittling, debate or skepticism could ever change the fact of
what I have found and encountered, Bigfoot is real.
It also does not change people who have had a real Bigfoot sighting.
They, like me, don't really care who believes them or not. They know
what they saw and you could never change their minds.
One thing about it, the Bigfoot community is full of the wild, the wacky
and the wonderful. Just pick a side. You're gonna love it!
For two days in late October, 2013, an unseen vocalizer made loud
moaning howls, whoops and wood knocks in the hills near Bruno, West
Virginia. A local resident managed to capture four clips of that
vocalizer with their cell phone, and those clips were quickly shared
with the BFRO. This video spectrogram is an illustrated playback of the
vocals captured in those clips. They are fairly to exceptionally clear,
but head phones are recommended to achieve the best possible listening
Take a journey to the Far East, to the remote Chinese province of Hubai
to discover what locals have dubbed the "Wild-Man." Witnesses have
reported seeing a creature that is covered in reddish-brown hair, walks
on two legs and is anywhere from five to seven-feet tall. Chinese
authorities have collected over one hundred samples of unidentified
hairs from the alleged monster and claim that it is just a matter of
time before they capture this "Wild-Man." Join an international team of
experts in a search for answers.
The story of Jacko – that of a small, apelike, young Sasquatch said
to have been captured alive in the 1800s – is a piece of folklore that
refuses to die, despite a superb investigative article published in
1975, co-authored by John Green and Sabina W. Sanderson.
The investigation into the Jacko story did not began until decades
later. During the 1950s, a news reporter named Brian McKelvie became
interested in the then-current stories of the Sasquatch being carried by
his local British Columbian papers. McKelvie searched for older
reports. What he found was the Daily British Colonist July 4,
1884, article about Jacko. The account detailed the sighting of a
smallish hairy creature (“something of the gorilla type”) supposedly
seen and captured near Yale, British Columbia, on June 30, 1884, and
housed in a local jail.
McKelvie shared the Jacko account with researchers John Green and
René Dahinden. MeKelvie told them this was the only record of the event
due to a fire that had destroyed other area newspapers of the time.
In 1958 John Green found and interviewed a man (August Castle) who
remembered the Jacko talk of the time, but he said his parents did not
take him to the jail to see the beast. Other senior citizens remembered
the talk of the creature, but no one could produce any truly good
evidence for or eyewitness accounts (other than the British Colonist story) of Jacko.
The story’s appearance in Ivan T. Sanderson’s 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life
propelled the Jacko incident into history. Other authors, including
John Green, René Dahinden/Don Hunter, Grover Krantz, and John Napier,
would follow. The story was repeated again and again.
John Green continued digging into story and finally discovered that
microfilms of British Columbia newspapers from the 1880s existed at the
University of British Columbia. Green then found two important articles
that threw light on the whole affair.
The New Westminster, British Columbia, Mainland Guardianof
July 9, 1884, mentioned the story and noted: “The ‘What Is It’ is the
subject of conversation in town. How the story originated, and by whom,
is hard for one to conjecture. Absurdity is written on the face of it.
The fact of the matter is, that no such animal was caught, and how the Colonist was duped in such a manner, and by such a story, is strange.”
On July 11, 1884, the British Columbian carried the news
that some 200 people had gone to the jail to view Jacko. But the “only
wild man visible” was a man, who was humorously called the “governor of
the goal [jail], who completely exhausted his patience” fielding the
repeated inquiries from the crowd about the nonexistent creature.
As Green has pointed out, the Colonist never disputed its
critics. Green (with Sanderson’s widow) wrote of the Jacko story as a
piece of probable historical journalistic fiction in the article, “Alas,
Poor Jacko,” in Pursuit published in 1975.
Some additional thoughts might be helpful to consider.
The complete description of this apparently newspaper cryptofiction
creation, Jacko, is as follows: “Something of the gorilla type standing
four feet seven inches in height and weighing 127. He has long, black,
strong hair and resembles a human being with one exception, his entire
body, excepting his hands, (or paws) and feet are covered with glossy
hair about an inch long. His fore arm is much longer than a man’s fore
arm.” (from “What Is It? A Strange Creature Captured Above Yale ~ A
British Columbia Gorilla,” Victoria, British Columbia, Daily Colonist, July 4, 1884).
John Green’s 1978 book, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us
expresses his feeling that “it doesn’t look good for Jacko,” but people
have uncritically reported the Jacko story, with elder citizens’
remembrances of the media attention to it, as if that is evidence for
the reality of Jacko. Anyone re-researching this story should be aware
that there are those who wish to continue to “believe” this journalistic
tale tall. One part of their argument is that the media excitement of
those times is justification for a factual basis in the creature, even
though, of course, there is no direct correlation between those two
elements of this hairy melodrama.
Other overblown claims have been made about how thoroughly the subject has been investigated.
For example, it has been widely disseminated, incorrectly, that Myra
Shackley “did perhaps the most exhaustive effort in the search for
Jacko.” Those writing such statements appear to have not read
Shackley’s recycling of the news item and her brief paragraph following
it. They do not seem to realize how illogical their comments are, for
Shackley merely referenced and rehashed John Green’s early research.
Dr. Myra Shackley conducted remarkable and outstanding research on
hominoids, but most of her work on Sasquatch was limited to a review of
others’ findings. Her speciality was Eurasia. Here above she is shown
in 1980, on “Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World” television program.
For Bigfoot researchers to say that Shackley “actually found a
resident by the name of August Castle whom confirmed the newspaper
report,” belies the facts of the case. She did not.
The youthful newspaper editor John Green spent several years
interviewing oldtimers in Western Canada about their earlier Sasquatch
The Castle interview was conducted in 1958, by Green, when Castle was
80 years old and when Shackley, living in England, would have been 13
years old! Shackley’s research into relict Neanderthal populations took
her to Mongolia in 1969, when she was 29, not to British Columbia to do
“exhaustive research” on Sasquatch.
Shackley abandoned her hominological research in the late 1980s, after she wrote Wildmen: Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma
(London: Thames & Hudson, 1983). No doubt August Castle was
deceased by the time her long-distance Sasquatch research began and her
writings were published.
Few have commented on the use of the name “Jacko,” or that it was
called a “gorilla,” so let me share some historical context notes on
these aspects of the 1884 story.
During the early days of finding great apes and talk of monkeys,
there was a tendency to name them “Jocko,” or by corruption, “Jacko.”
One famed painting from France that appeared entitled Le Jocko,
in the late 18th century speaks to how some primates were named
“Jocko.” The painting below is by Jean-Baptiste Audebert (1759-1800),
and is listed in auctions and libraries as Le Jocko / Simia Satyrus. The beautiful rare print is dated 1797 [-1800], and is from one of the greatest monographic work on mammals ever published, Histoire Naturelle des Singes, which appeared in only 138 published copies.
What species do you think it might have been?
For those that wish to tie the British Columbian “Jacko” with P. T.
Barnum, it must be pointed out that the appearance of “Jocko” occurred
from August 28, 1865 through September 2, 1865, at Barnum’s American
Museum in New York City, fully 19 years before the news article was
published of “Jacko’s capture” in Canada.
It appears that since 1849, a play involving a monkey-man role on
Broadway was being performed in a pantomime called “Jocko.” Barnum
merely provided a temporary setting for this famed play.
As the anthropologist Jane Goodall explained during a November 1, 2002 ABC radio interview:
In the show business, Jocko was an old friend and familiar who
could stage his return in any guise he pleased, and be confident of a
warm reception. The story of “Jocko or the Brazilian Ape’ involved a
child and monkey in parallel roles, and the pantomime, first performed
in Paris in 1825, was choreographed so that their movements offered
mirror images. Jocko the ape has been adopted by an enlightened
plantation owner. After being rescued from a killer serpent the
plantation owner is determined to educate him. And Jocko repays the
favour by rescuing the owner’s son from a shipwreck, then saving him in
turn from the killer serpent. The plantation workers, not as enlightened
as the boss, become suspicious of the ape and attack him. But he’s
rescued again, and in the finale, Jocko and the child dance side by
side, as adoptive brothers.
The idea that there was an ape in the family, supposedly so shocking
to the Victorians, was evidently hugely enjoyable to popular theatre
audiences who’d embraced it long before Darwin put his particular spin
When the pantomime was recreated for New York audiences, it
became less precious and sentimental, more acrobatic. And it set off a
craze for burlesque imitations. Jocko, variously camped up, was soon
making appearances in the minstrel shows as a character in his own
right, a cult figure who could be relied upon to get the audience
cracking up. He was the outsider who was on intimate terms with them,
communicating through comic mime with expressions and gestures that
became a well known code.
If things were not confusing enough, P. T. Barnum began “exhibiting” a
Russian man in 1884, billed as “Jo Jo – The Dogfaced Boy.”
The use of the name “Jocko” to denote apes and monkeys continues into modern times. In the 20th century, The Adventures of Jo, Zette and Jocko (1936-1957) was a comic book (or bande dessinée)
series created by the famed Hergé, the Belgian writer-artist Georges
Prosper Remi (May 22, 1907 – March 3, 1983), who was best known for The Adventures of Tintin
(1929-1983). The heroes of the series are two young children, brother
and sister Jo and Zette Legrand and their pet monkey Jocko. The monkey
Jocko sometimes appeared on the back covers of various editions of The Adventures of Tintin (one of the best of which was about the Yeti).
What of the use of the word “gorilla” in British Columbia in 1884?
In North America, at the end of the 19th century, the use of “gorilla” in article references (as I detailed in a Fortean Times
column in 1997), is directly related to the media attention about
gorillas whipped up by Du Chaillu’s sensationalistic travels in Africa
and his book that came out in 1861.
Vernon Reynolds (in The Apes, 1967. p. 137) writes: “After
(Du Chaillu’s) trip, which lasted from 1856 to 1859, Du Chaillu returned
to the United States, where he received widespread acclaim.”
In 1863, another famous gorilla/travel book was published, written by
American explorer Winwood Reade, after he spent five months in gorilla
country. Nineteenth century articles about “strange creatures” – whether
real or imagined – often thus labeled them as “gorillas.”
While a parallel tribe of wild men and women, often hairy and
uncivilized, in the Pacific Northwest, living harmoniously and
contemporarily with the Indians, was taken somewhat for granted by the
First Nations people, it would not be until the 1920s when J. W. Burns
introduced “Sasquatch” and in 1958 when Andrew Genzoli disseminated
“Bigfoot” via a national media, that non-Indians would more widely begin
to acknowledge the hairy giants of the woods.
If “Jacko” had been real and shown in sideshows, zoos, or at
universities, the entire history of anthropology and zoology in the
Americas would be different.
But one journalistic tall tale does not undermine hundreds of years
of Native traditions, folklore, and sightings that point to a
reality-based foundation of true apes in North America.