Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

jamesrav

Member
here's the interview from 2005 with Bob H. I think it's very revealing. First, he definitely implicates Gimlin in the hoax, no doubt about that. Perhaps no surprise on that point ... except that Packham came to an entirely different conclusion: Gimlin was an innocent stooge, Patterson had 'used' him ; the time they were briefly apart that morning was when Roger went off and set it all up, somehow getting Bob H. out to the Bluff Creek site (hours ahead of time ? left wearing the suit that Bob H. says was "hot as hell" for several hours, just waiting for Roger to show on the horse with Gimlin?). So a BBC wildlife correspondent, who perhaps convinced the BBC to finance this semi-documentary and had a strong anti-Bigfoot bias coming in which formed the basis for the tone of the documentary, completely disagrees on a very important point regarding the hoax, with the 'hoaxer' himself (Bob H.). Was he beguiled by Gimlin during their chat on the phone? Maybe. Seems strange that he would not have 'left the door open' to Gimlin being part of the hoax, but apparently was so swayed by the conversation that the only conclusion could be: Gimlin was a patsy.

Bob H.'s answers during the interview just don't make sense to me. The questioner basically says "so for 10 minutes work you get $1000" and Bob H. agrees entirely, concluding "that's the end of it". You'd think he'd mention if there was extensive practice involved in a very uncomfortable 'hot as hell' suit, to justify the $1000. But apparently he nailed the "gorilla walk" (which is nothing like a gorilla) on the 1st go, and was ready for the main shoot at a subsequent date. I guess he was a natural in performing a gorilla walk, which magically turned out to be a walk completely in line with an animal weighing hundreds of pounds and could not be matched in all respects by a person being given verbal instructions by two experts on gait kinematics?

He also says he was 'given the suit' (doesnt mention the helmet as a separate item, I'll give him a pass on that since the entire 'costume' is usually spoken of as 'one thing', even if it was in fact: a suit, sticks for arm extensions, a helmet, special shoes/booties ... I'm probably overlooking some items). Then later he gives everything back to Roger and "that's the end of it". So he makes no effort to keep a little, tiny souvenir to back up his claim at a future date. A little snip of a bootie? a 2" x 2" piece of the suit? a picture of it all ? never crossed his mind. He's owed $1000 ($7700 in today's money - that's another red flag since Roger never had any money, and I'm sure Bob H. knew that - the Long book is mostly a character assassination of Roger), you'd think for extortion purposes he'd keep a tiny memento. Nope.

"1. Film related; the equipment used at the distances the creature was, cannot resolve many crucial details of a hoax or a real creature."

How would Roger have known that beforehand? And that goes against a key Packham objection, that Roger was "right on top of the subject". I've read 60'. That's 20 paces - very close. Seemingly a huge risk by Roger if the suit was actually loose around the ankles, or the neck - the typical areas where suits show their 'suitness' (and suit problems in the making of TV shows have been covered extensively by experts like Munns - yet not a single glitch happened during this one-time filming)

"2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film."

I cant deny the first sentence. I'll just mention that 95% of the matter in the Universe is considered 'missing' , yet the Universe and that missing matter is definitely out there.

"might produce all sorts of strange looking gaits. " 'Strange' is your term, bio-mechanic experts have said "highly efficient" and "more efficient than a human". Bob H. spontaneously 'invented' a gait that humans have extreme difficulty doing, yet it matches up perfectly with what a 500 pound biped would have to do. And those footprints left behind leave no doubt it was heavy.

"So, the un-human gait that can't be replicated kinda looks like Heronemus' actual walk? And this is because he has been practicing it to give credence to his story?"

It kind of does, at least when Bob H. is wearing high cowboy boots. Do rigid cowboy boots prompt a high-step walk, as compared to ordinary flat tennis shoes? And when I say prompt, I mean once that type of step begins you are forced to continue in a certain way in order to complete it. The boots 'force' the walk to be that way. If so, clever choice for his demo. Certainly you can shuffle in cowboy boots, but if you needed to take a long stride at fast pace, is a foot lift mandatory? I do know as a scuba diver, you cannot walk forward in flippers without lifting the foot entirely, leading to the oft-seen ridiculous walk. That's why divers walk backwards.

or "walk like yourself" . The simplest option, and perhaps surprisingly the closest to what is observed. But it implies no 'value added' by Bob, no acting - just walk like a person. Was a Bigfoot 'walking like a person' the best outcome here with respect to showing the world (and experts) a new unknown creature? That's exactly what they wouldn't want. Then the immediate objection would be "it walks just like a human!" And surprisingly, that's still the common (incorrect) belief by the public. That it walks too much like a human - which it absolutely does not as we've discussed at length. I think if you forced an interested person to endure a 15 minute comparison/description of a human walk vs. the PG walk, they'd come away saying 'I guess it's really not like a person after all'.

"As is Gimlin, he's the only other person we know was there,". As a short fellow myself (and Patterson was only 5' 3"), from what I've seen Gimlin is a short guy too. Even Bob H. at 6' 1" really cannot fit the bill. The McClarin overlay leads to a pretty good conclusion that the subject is 6'5" or more (even Packham says so ; they use the overlay method and Packham admits the subject "is just a little taller" than McClarin. And Packham says the overlay "precisely matches"). That is also a big deal, since we are now talking 6'5"+. People 6'5"+ are pretty rare (I've seen reference to 3% at 6'5", and it drops dramatically after that). So if the BBC overlay is correct, we may be talking about a 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000 situation.

as to the breasts better than 'male genitalia' proposition, even frame 352 doesnt show a view that would potentially pose a problem. And that's the most turned-to-the-camera pose, so its a non-issue for all the other frames. But it does lead to a story that I guess I have to tell now. :) I went to the Vancouver's World Fair in 1986. Certainly Bigfoot country. I was excited to see an event on the schedule, apparently a production involving Bigfoot. It was described as a comedy, involving the kidnapping of a person (a female) by a family of Bigfoot. I believe it mentioned something to the effect that it was for mature audiences. Well that was entirely ignored, as families filled the stadium, it was packed. Lots of buzz from the crowd, and the play begins. Within a few minutes the patriarch of the Bigfoot family and his sons enter the stage. And they are not eunuchs' :) In fact, quite the opposite. The stadium goes dead silent, and then some quiet murmuring can be heard all around: "we have to go". A packed stadium cleared out in 1 minute. The nearest person to me was now 20' away. It was hilarious.

Source: https://youtu.be/XKLbaprBqPM?t=207
 

Attachments

  • overlay.jpg
    overlay.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 29

deirdre

Senior Member.
Bob H.'s answers during the interview just don't make sense to me. The questioner basically says "so for 10 minutes work you get $1000" and Bob H. agrees entirely, concluding "that's the end of it". You'd think he'd mention if there was extensive practice involved in a very uncomfortable 'hot as hell' suit, to justify the $1000. But apparently he nailed the "gorilla walk" (which is nothing like a gorilla) on the 1st go, and was ready for the main shoot at a subsequent date. I guess he was a natural in performing a gorilla walk, which magically turned out to be a walk completely in line with an animal weighing hundreds of pounds and could not be matched in all respects by a person being given verbal instructions by two experts on gait kinematics?
i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?
I agree. There's nothing strange in Bob H. just taking the money and walking away. The movie is more than half a century old. Bear in mind that none of the participants could possibly have foreseen that the movie would still be getting close scrutiny this many years later.
 

jamesrav

Member
i think you need to drop the "Patterson had no money" thing. 1. that aldritch? guy was funding Patterson and more importanyly 2. if my friend said 'help me with this, and i'll give you 1000$ or i'll give you a thousand from the money we make off this", i would still do it even if i never expected to see a dime. it would be fun (and funny) to dress up as bigfoot and make a film. Remember there were no video games back then and frankly, squat on TV. How else are you gonna spend your time?
he didnt return (ie pay for ) the camera rental, and I think an arrest warrant was issued. So if he was being financed, he didnt set aside enough to pay a camera rental. No comment on the Bob H. interview, and why he would not take a souvenir of the multi-item 'apparatus' ? (calling it merely a 'suit' seems an insult: main body portion (maybe 2 parts, I've heard reference to an upper and lower half), helmet, head covering (if not sewed on fur to the helmet), extension 'arm' sticks, booties ... am I missing anything? Watch the Gimlin interviews, everybody thinks he's telling the truth - even Packham from the BBC. So then it becomes a character study of Bob H. and Roger. Plenty of interviews with Roger on Sasquatch Archives YT channel ; he may have been a dreamer and a schemer, but he comes across as sincere to me in all prior and subsequent film interviews. I love this quote from Mark Twain: "“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” That's what I see/hear when I listen to his interviews. Bob H. (with respect to the PG footage - not so much). I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
"1. Film related; the equipment used at the distances the creature was, cannot resolve many crucial details of a hoax or a real creature."

How would Roger have known that beforehand? And that goes against a key Packham objection, that Roger was "right on top of the subject". I've read 60'. That's 20 paces - very close. Seemingly a huge risk by Roger if the suit was actually loose around the ankles, or the neck - the typical areas where suits show their 'suitness' (and suit problems in the making of TV shows have been covered extensively by experts like Munns - yet not a single glitch happened during this one-time filming)
He had already tried making a film about Bigfoot hunting with Gimlin and Heronemus:

In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.

In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie.[33] They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot".[34]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

It's not unconceivable that he had learned about how far to stay from his subject, given the resolution provided by his equipment, to create the effect he wanted. We can see a hairy bipedal creature, but not a lot of detail. As for Packham, I not sure what he's saying. Here's how far Patterson was. I wouldn't call that "right on top", nor would I say that any problems with the suit would be obvious at this distance.
This is how it appeared originally. We are used to seeing the zoomed in version:


1659111219154.png

"2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film."

I cant deny the first sentence. I'll just mention that 95% of the matter in the Universe is considered 'missing' , yet the Universe and that missing matter is definitely out there.

I guess I would say that there is a difference, for me, between a sufficient population of large hominins running around the forest and interstellar dark matter. It strikes me as similar to New Agers comparing their energy healing arts to Quantum Mechanics. Deepack Chopra notwithstanding, they are not related, at least according to most physicists

"might produce all sorts of strange looking gaits. " 'Strange' is your term, bio-mechanic experts have said "highly efficient" and "more efficient than a human". Bob H. spontaneously 'invented' a gait that humans have extreme difficulty doing, yet it matches up perfectly with what a 500 pound biped would have to do.

As noted, before, there seems to be only one bio-mechanic expert to say this, unless you have others. The Soviet era Dr. Donskoy. I linked to his" paper" in another post. If what is reproduced is what he wrote 1973, it's hardly a peer reviewed work. It's a one-page opinion on his observations of the creature, and while he uses the phrase "highly efficient" he does not say "more efficient than a human". The closest he gets is (bold by me):

Since the creature is man-like and bipedal, its walk resembles in principle the gait of modern man. But all its movements indicate that its weight is much greater, its muscles especially much stronger, and the walk swifter than that of man.
Content from External Source
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

Being swifter does not mean "more efficient than a human". Humans can and do hunt much swifter animals, up to and including cheetahs, using persistence hunting techniques:

Persistence hunting
Content from External Source
(sometimes called endurance hunting) is a hunting technique in which hunters, who may be slower than their prey over short distances, use a combination of running, walking and tracking to keep pursuing prey over prolonged time and distance until it is exhausted by fatigue or overheating. A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.

Persistence hunting has even been used against the fastest land animal, the cheetah. In November 2013, four Somali-Kenyan herdsmen from northeast Kenya successfully used persistence hunting in the heat of the day to capture cheetahs who had been killing their goats.[12]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Despite all the descriptions about the creature in the paper, he was probably looking at one of the copies of the film taken to Europe. I think this video appears to be just a straight version of the original and includes all the background footage taken before the encounter. While the thumbnail shows a zoomed in the video is of the actual film from a distance. This should be queued to start when Patterson finally settles down and we get the few seconds of the walk, from which, Donskoy draws his conclusions:

Source: https://youtu.be/BQU-HX8EsEU?t=147


After watching that he says he sees muscles tensing:

During this phase certain muscles of the leg are extended and become tense in preparation for the subsequent toe-off.
Content from External Source
I don't know, I just don't think the resolution is up to that.


I will note that a lot of Soviet Science was overshadowed by the needs of Marxism and the ruling Party. The Soviet failure to create computers like the west was doing after WW2, is great example. This guy was put in charge and didn't believe in vacuum tube type calculating machines, but no one would dare to disagree:
1659115661582.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8


The most notorious was Lysenko, who despite being completely wrong about everything, was praised and put in charge:

In reality, Lysenko was what we might today call a crackpot. Among other things, he denied the existence of DNA and genes, he claimed that plants selected their mates, and argued that they could acquire characteristics during their lifetime and pass them on. He also espoused the theory that some plants choose to sacrifice themselves for the good of the remaining plants – another notion that runs against the grain of evolutionary understanding.

Pravda – formerly the official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party – celebrated him for finding a way to fertilise crops without applying anything to the field.

None of this could be backed up by solid evidence. His experiments were not repeatable, nor could his theories claim overwhelming consensus among other scientists. But Lysenko had the ear of the one man who counted most in the USSR: Joseph Stalin.

In 1948, the Lenin Academy announced that Lysenkoism should be taught as the only correct theory, and that continued until the mid-1960s.
Content from External Source
https://theconversation.com/the-tra...-folly-of-political-meddling-in-science-72580

I'm not saying Donskoy is a crank, but I take most Soviet science with a large grain of salt. I found this reference to him (bold by me):

In the 1976–77 academic year there were 5,000 students enrolled at the institute. The teaching staff numbered approximately 400, including 27 professors and doctors of sciences and more than 200 docents and candidates of sciences. The faculty also included 57 Honored Masters of Sport and Honored Coaches of the USSR and of Union republics and more than 100 Masters of Sport. Outstanding teachers include D. D. Donskoi, K. V. Gradopolov, V. L. Karpman, L. P. Matveev, N. G. Ozolin, P. A. Rudik, and V. M. Zatsiorskii.
Content from External Source
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Physical+Culture,+Institute+of

But it included this warning at the top of the page:

The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.
Content from External Source
In addition, some Soviet scientist did think a relic group of Neanderthals, often known as "Almas" or "Almasti" lived in remote parts of Siberia, though if true we now know they would likely be Denisovans:

In 1964, a Soviet scientist from the Soviet Academy of Sciences proposed that the Almasti could be a relict population of Neanderthals still living in Siberia.[8]
Content from External Source
As noted in another post, the other Soviet associated with Donskoy, Bayanov has a long history of searching for relic hominins:

Bayanov and Bourtsev have been at the forefront of investigations into the identity of these hairy hominids of Russia which have come to be known as Kaptars and Almas depending upon the geographical location in which they are to be found.
Content from External Source
So, while you repeatedly use the notion of bio-mechanic experts proving the film can't be hoaxed, it seems to just be the opinion of one Soviet scientist and his cryptid hunting associate. Unless you have other sources?

Lastly on the gait, after watching Krantz explain it and do it, does it look all that efficient to you?

And those footprints left behind leave no doubt it was heavy.

If the footprints that were cast are the same made by the guy in the suit. If the footprints are made separate, then the creature doesn't have to be that heavy.
Was a Bigfoot 'walking like a person' the best outcome here with respect to showing the world (and experts) a new unknown creature? That's exactly what they wouldn't want. Then the immediate objection would be "it walks just like a human!"
I agree with you on this, which is why the person in the suit made up a strange walk. That could still resemble Heronimus' natural walk if he's the guy in the suit.

Perhaps you missed my point in listing possible things Patterson may have said by way instruction. Patterson is gone. He may have said any number of things or nothing at all, but Heronemus has since remembered it as "walk like a gorilla". He may be correct; he may be confabulating. Memory is very fallible.

And they are not eunuchs' :) In fact, quite the opposite. The stadium goes dead silent, and then some quiet murmuring can be heard all around: "we have to go". A packed stadium cleared out in 1 minute. The nearest person to me was now 20' away. It was hilarious.

Which actually gives some credence to my half-joking speculation. As the film turned out, male genitalia would not likely be seen, so maybe it wasn't a concern, but your old enough to remember film is not like modern video equipment. Your not sure what you captured until its developed, days to weeks later. Better safe than sorry.

Mark Twain: "“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

Except we now know, memory doesn't work that way.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
No comment on the Bob H. interview, and why he would not take a souvenir of the multi-item 'apparatus' ?
it would never in a million years occur to me to keep a "souvenir" from a costume my friend made.

Watch the Gimlin interviews, everybody thinks he's telling the truth
apparently not, because i don't. Bob H doesn't. even the guy who was financing them doesn't believe it. :)

but he comes across as sincere to me in all prior and subsequent film interviews
so did Ted Bundy.

not that i'm comparing him with Ted Bundy as far as evilness of underlying personality. I dont think faking a film to try to make a few bucks for your family (when youre dying of cancer) or to get people to think youre not nuts is that big a deal.

I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.
That's cool.
 

jamesrav

Member
"If the footprints that were cast are the same made by the guy in the suit. If the footprints are made separate, then the creature doesn't have to be that heavy."

that introduces a new twist (and problem for Roger and Gimlin) - bringing some type of apparatus to the site to make deep prints. I think this is getting into 'extreme conjecture' compared to the simpler one, that a 400+ pound 'something' created the deep prints. The McClarin overlay (which Packham's production created, and he has no problem with apparently as to what it shows) shows something much broader than McClarin, who at 6'5" must weight 200 pounds or more.

Coincidentally I just watched that Soviet computer video last week, out of all the millions of videos we seem to have 'synchronized' on that one. But that's for another thread :). I think anyone can admit however that the Soviets were extremely good at basic science and math, things that did not require a lot of money to investigate. My background is Applied Math (Numerical Analysis), and the Soviet contribution to that field is substantial. They may not have had the money to make a supercomputer, but they knew how to efficiently solve equations should they ever get one. Same goes with bio-mechanics - its a 'cheap' field and yields valuable results. Their Olympic athletes in the 60's and 70's benefited no doubt.

Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus. It's not suitable for people, which is why he has great difficulty doing it (as he states).

as for not taking a souvenir, while still apparently being owed $1000 ($7700 in todays money - and as the above post mentions " For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, meaning Bob H. didnt apparently mind being a volunteer at that point) you are just too nice. I know if I'm ever taken aboard a UFO, I'm grabbing an ashtray. It's always bugged me, even as a young kid, that nobody supposedly taken aboard a UFO pockets a memento.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
"2. Contextually, as noted in my previous post, there has to date been NO Bigfoot bodies, remains, skeletons, fossils or any DNA evidence for this species of hominin. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that that is what is in the film."

I cant deny the first sentence. I'll just mention that 95% of the matter in the Universe is considered 'missing' , yet the Universe and that missing matter is definitely out there.
85%.

And the difference is that, given the evidence for it, "dark matter" is the simplest explanation (but may yet prove to be incorrect), while for the bigfoot sightings "hoax" is the simplest explanation.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
As the film turned out, male genitalia would not likely be seen, so maybe it wasn't a concern
On the other hand, IF the suit was for the mockumentary about Ape Canyon, you'd not want a suit with pronounced genitals, whether or not they might show up in this short clip. Not sure you'd want breasts either, unless the script specifically called for a female creature. REALLY wish the script for that planned film existed!) In any case, fur-covered breasts would be less likely to raise issues with obscenity laws (as essentially clothed by the fur) than would dangly naughty bits in the groinal area ...
 

jamesrav

Member
85%.

And the difference is that, given the evidence for it, "dark matter" is the simplest explanation (but may yet prove to be incorrect), while for the bigfoot sightings "hoax" is the simplest explanation.
only 85%? well then, never mind :) I think there's some doubt even about the figure itself, but I've seen 95% a few places and this: "In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy." The 27+68 = 95. In any case, must be disconcerting to be an astronomer or astrophysicist and realize your measurements and theories and models all differ so much. It's all beyond my comprehension, much like being told that the universe and everything in it was once (briefly) the size of a soccer ball. When I read the layman oriented articles on this dark matter / dark energy 'missing' problem I always think "and what about dark meat, the best part of the turkey?" Believing in a 'real' Bigfoot (albeit vanishing small probability) or 'something else' seems easy when compared to a soccer ball sized universe.
 

Mauro

Active Member
Believing in a 'real' Bigfoot (albeit vanishing small probability) or 'something else' seems easy when compared to a soccer ball sized universe.
Indeed it is, as it's easier to believe in a sun god rather than in a giant ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing complex nuclear fusion reactions in its core. One needs to be open-minded even to the most apparently absurd theories: the discriminant is the evidence.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I do think Patterson had a suit for his documentary, probably at the ready for nefarious purposes. So maybe Bob H. was involved in some way. But not as the PG subject.

Patterson did in fact have a suit ready for a hoax, and Heronemus was somehow involved, but then he just happened to stumble upon a real Bigfoot? But them faking the footprints is:
I think this is getting into 'extreme conjecture'

Faking footprints is a standard in the Bigfoot world.

It's not that hard. If the perceived weight of the creature is based upon the depth of the footprints left in sandy gravel, then no equipment is needed except a small shovel. Hell, it's sandy gravel, they could have just used their hands. Dig out an area a bit, then make the footprint so it appears to be deeper. Therefore, created by a heavier creature.

That seems much more reasonable than:

compared to the simpler one, that a 400+ pound 'something' created the deep prints.

A 400+# what? As you agreed to above, there is no other compelling evidence for a large hominin in North America.

I think anyone can admit however that the Soviets were extremely good at basic science and math, things that did not require a lot of money to investigate. My background is Applied Math (Numerical Analysis), and the Soviet contribution to that field is substantial. They may not have had the money to make a supercomputer, but they knew how to efficiently solve equations should they ever get one. Same goes with bio-mechanics - its a 'cheap' field and yields valuable results. Their Olympic athletes in the 60's and 70's benefited no doubt.

They're really good at designing bad reactors and condemning the people that point out the flaws and really good at doping athletes. I'm sure they're great at math. As for their lack of computers, from the video I got it wasn't as much a lack of funds, they had the whole state backing them, it's that once one person is in charge there is no free thought. Everybody tows the Party line.

As I said, I'm not calling Donskoy a crank, but he appears to be the only guy that is saying this a highly efficient gait, along with maybe Krantz. How does anybody know what an efficient gait looks like for a 400-500# bipedal hominin? Something none of them has ever seen, aside from a morbidly obese human. People that big that I have seen don't walk anything like the creature in the video. They just kinda shuffle along as best they can.

The walk reminds me a lot of how it felt to walk in snowboard boots in powdery snow. Exaggerated knee bends to lift the boot out of the powder and on to the next step. Kinda like walking in oversized shoes in sandy gravel.

Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus. It's not suitable for people, which is why he has great difficulty doing it (as he states).

Again, see above. It's ONE (1) Soviet guy looking at a fuzzy film and Krantz. If there are "others", please provide a source(s).

Coincidentally I just watched that Soviet computer video last week, out of all the millions of videos we seem to have 'synchronized' on that one.

What's strange is, I was searching for some TIG welding videos as my skills are severely lacking and the Soviet Computer one showed up in the side bar :confused:. It turned out to be more interesting.

On a side note, the Mrs. and I are planning on doing a little Bigfoot hunting this weekend. That is, take a day trip up into Lassen National Forest. I'll report back any sightings.
 

jamesrav

Member
Patterson did in fact have a suit ready for a hoax, and Heronemus was somehow involved, but then he just happened to stumble upon a real Bigfoot? But them faking the footprints is:


Faking footprints is a standard in the Bigfoot world.
That's why the film is so important. I've now watched 3 or 4 videos on the footprints, and with Ray Wallace involved in that area, it becomes a confusing mess. I disagree about using hands, or shovel, the skeptics analyzing back in the 60's felt maybe a machine of some sort. Considering Wallace was involved in clearing forest and whatnot, heavy equipment was certainly present. Could he have adapted some machine, versus just strapping on some 'stompers' (as they are called). But that doesnt explain the Patty prints.

A 400+# what? As you agreed to above, there is no other compelling evidence for a large hominin in North America.
I'm pretty up front in saying not a real animal. Doesnt rule out something fake (not human fake though) with mass. Let me sidebar for a bit: you've probably seen the famous Sagan video of 'Flatland' a 2D land inhabited by 2D 'people'. They cannot of course perceive the 3rd dimension, but we could certainly 'intrude' by lowering a 2D cut-out of a 'creature' into the only world they know. It would come out of nowhere, be no different than they were , and could disappear in an instant by being withdrawn from Flatland. Sagan basically presents what I've just said. Now extend that to a 4th spatial dimension: something could be placed into our 3D world, would be indistinguishable from what we are aware of (assuming the 4D denizens had sufficient skill) and could be withdrawn at will. No difference than what Sagan describes, except the dimension difference. Of course there is apparently no 4th spatial dimension. But it cant be ruled out, and I read a laymans article at Forbes.com of all places, written by an astrophysicist that says as much. His concluding line is hardly on par with the usual "that's not even wrong" dismissal of unusual ideas. And with 85 or 95% of the Universe AWOL with all the effort put forth to 'find it', physicists have a good reason to be humble.

"There are many problems that are very difficult to solve in three space and one time dimension, but that simplify greatly with one or more extra ones. There are a number of ways to obtain a Universe very much like our own if you start with one or more extra dimensions, and a set of very beautiful and elegant pictures that could describe our Universe. But unless we obtain direct evidence that points towards these claims, we have no choice but to consider them as highly speculative. In physics, as in all sciences, it’s evidence, not popularity, that determines what is true about our Universe. Until that evidence arrives, we can remain open to extra spatial dimensions as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical."

so that's one possible 'solution' , as is of course The Simulation Hypothesis, whereby introducing (and removing) a new 'character' in the game would be trivial. No proof of either (despite a claim by an astrophysicist that he has detected 'computer code' at some level, there's a video on that hosted by Tyson). But the mental gymnastics needed to force the square peg into the round hole (or should I say, the 6'1" Bob H. into a suit that translates into > 6'5" according to the McClarin overlay) is almost as implausible. Let me state I can remain open to extra spatial dimensions Bob H. as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical
The walk reminds me a lot of how it felt to walk in snowboard boots in powdery snow. Exaggerated knee bends to lift the boot out of the powder and on to the next step. Kinda like walking in oversized shoes in sandy gravel.
according to Bob H. that's how he and Roger agreed to walk, ya know, like a gorilla. A gorilla in deep powder :)
Again, see above. It's ONE (1) Soviet guy looking at a fuzzy film and Krantz. If there are "others", please provide a source(s).
I'm reluctant to post an entire video for a few lines, but in the 1971 interview with Roger there's a lady who gives her impressions, presumed to be anthropologist Marjorie Halpin since she was working at the Univ. of British Columbia at the time, and this occurred in British Columbia. She says she felt the creature walked "very smooth" like a "gliding walk". So if it was her, it lends some credence about the walk not being difficult for whatever it was to do (although I admit an anthropologist is not the same as a bio-mechanics expert. Still, Krantz and a Russian expert leave you requesting more?
On a side note, the Mrs. and I are planning on doing a little Bigfoot hunting this weekend. That is, take a day trip up into Lassen National Forest. I'll report back any sightings.
if your next post begins "You'll never believe this ..."
 

Mauro

Active Member
I'm pretty up front in saying not a real animal. ....... we can remain open to extra spatial dimensions as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical." ......

so that's one possible 'solution' , as is of course The Simulation Hypothesis...

At last it seems (if I understood well) your two favored hypothesis on Patterson's film are 1) it shows the 3D projection of a multidimensional being, or 2) it was a glitch or a purposeful tampering with the Matrix. Do you have any specific claim of evidence about any of these, apart from speculations with some spiking of appeals to authority? Ie.: can you show, for instance, for hypothesis 1), that the gait of the 'something' in the film, on which you seem to rely so much to reject the hoax hypothesis, is instead just what we expect from 4 dimensional 'xenogorillas' crossing somehow through our 3D space? Or anything else, to the effect of convincing an open-minded skeptic like me?
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus.

But what if the bloke, plus his sponge-padded body-suit, didn't weigh that much? There's a lot of question-begging going on in that statement.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
But unless we obtain direct evidence that points towards these claims, we have no choice but to consider them as highly speculative. In physics, as in all sciences, it’s evidence, not popularity, that determines what is true about our Universe. Until that evidence arrives, we can remain open to extra spatial dimensions as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical."
Correct, we don't have any evidence for extra dimensions. But since we have what I think to be a fairly likely explanation (hoax with guy in a suit) and another possible explanation (unknown creature), is it helpful to muddy the waters with what remains "highly speculative"? It seems a real stretch to promote a notion from the speculative to the category of "possible" without first having evidence that it is indeed possible.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And with 85 or 95% of the Universe AWOL with all the effort put forth to 'find it', physicists have a good reason to be humble.
No.

Physicists are proud to have found evidence that allows them to pose these kinds of questions. Having questions nobody can answer (yet) is not a cause for shame, but a cause for pride.

Your attitude betrays your lack of insight into what science is about.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Faking footprints is a standard in the Bigfoot world.

It's not that hard. If the perceived weight of the creature is based upon the depth of the footprints left in sandy gravel, then no equipment is needed except a small shovel.
Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.
The measured footprints need not have been the ones left during the creature walk on the film either. Maybe a footprint mold with hoaxer standing/jumping hard on it, left at a different time?
 

jamesrav

Member
No.

Physicists are proud to have found evidence that allows them to pose these kinds of questions. Having questions nobody can answer (yet) is not a cause for shame, but a cause for pride.

Your attitude betrays your lack of insight into what science is about.

he's a professor of High Energy Physics at Caltech
“I am humbled by the universe. We should be embarrassed at some level about how little we know, but this can also be an opportunity to learn more.”
— MARK WISE
_________________

"The measured footprints need not have been the ones left during the creature walk on the film either. Maybe a footprint mold with hoaxer standing/jumping hard on it, left at a different time? "

If referring to the PG film, the timeline really doesnt allow for that. Last night I read a detailed, lengthy, account of what Gimlin says happened after the encounter. Very detailed, so if he was making it up as he went, he's a master story-teller, and even Packham from the BBC seemed to rule him out as being 'in on the hoax' after their phone conversation. I'll note for the Nth time that Bob H. directly accuses Gimlin of being in on the hoax, so you have two very strong hoax proponents (Bob H and Packham) who differ on a fundamental point. I'd think by now Team Hoax would be on the same page, but they cannot even agree on the most fundamental things comprising a viable theory. So assuming he was not making it up and as Packham states, an innocent patsy, how were deep casts made the same afternoon by Roger ? They were together for the whole time until leaving to get the film developed. And funny you should mention it, but Gimlin did what you state, jumped off something (I cant recall what) to try to mimic the depth of the prints left behind. He could not. Even a 1200 lb horse (weight distribution different of course) could not leave impressions the same depth. Could a 6'8" - 6'10" 500 pound biped have left tracks at such a depth? Seems like the simplest answer to me, and I know skeptics employ Occams Razor at will ( "the simplest of competing theories be preferred to ..." ). With respect to the deep footprints , the theories seem to be: very heavy biped vs. some machine brought in to simulate deep footprints. #1 is far 'simpler', although I acknowledge involves 'unknown phenomena'

"But since we have what I think to be a fairly likely explanation (hoax with guy in a suit) "

it's only 'fairly likely' due to your own constraints. And it's not fairly likely, it has an implied probability of .999 , since I think it's a safe guess everyone here would say the probability of a real animal is .001 (1/10 of 1% - I doubt anyone here would even say 1% chance. I don't give it a 1% chance, based on 200 years of Natural History data). With two options and the probability having to add to 1.0, the math is pretty easy. If there weren't so many contradictions in the hoax theory I'd naturally opt for that too, versus bringing in the 4th dimension or what not. If Bob H. said "Gimlin knew nothing of this" and got on the same page as everyone else regarding hoax, it'd be a slam dunk. But Bob H. went rogue and messed it all up. Which is what liars inevitably do.
 
Last edited:

jamesrav

Member
you mean our constraint on not buying an interdimensional 500 lb human-gorilla hybrid dropped into our matrix?
I never said both Interdimensional and part of a Simulated Universe, don't exaggerate my position :)

I can just see whoever is responsible thinking "how many more clues do I have to give them? It walks like a man, an inhuman man, yet has breasts. It leaves impressions consistent with a 500 pound object, but there are no 500 pound objects available to make them. It has shown up repeatedly in nearly every state in the most advanced, developed country on earth, even those with nary a mountain in sight. It has never been hit by a car, died later to be recovered, stumbled into a town searching for food. It was filmed at close enough range to convince perhaps the most relevant observers (costume / special effects experts) that it could not be a hoax consistent with the tools available in the year 1967. Both sides certainly cling to their beliefs despite contrarian evidence"
__________________
this was posted on the Sasquatch Archives YT channel, it's a long read and probably only of interest to someone who has discarded the hoax theory. To those who haven't, I'm sure the reaction will be "So ?"

here's part of a transcription I did of Gimlin speaking at a 2013 NY Conference. This may help to answer some of your questions:

We caught [gathered] the horses up, folks. Roger put more film in the camera. So, therefore our next [logical] move was to get some material to make plaster casts. [But that was deferred.] Well, I wanted to still go on farther. So we went ahead up about another third of a mile and we saw one half of a wet footprint on a great big rock. This thing crossed the creek at that area and went right up through the rocks and the cliffs up into the mountains. I was in fairly good physical shape in those days. I was only 36 years old. I wanted to go up through those rocks. All I wanted to do was see it again and make sure I wasn't dreaming or seeing things. So Roger said, “We gotta' get back and get some casts of those tracks. Now I've got film in the camera we gotta' get some pictures of the footprints.” So we did a few things there. I got up on a stump there and jumped off with a cowboy riding heel boot, and let my right foot hit first, to illustrate the depth of the creature's track compared to my track with a cowboy boot. It naturally wasn't near as deep as the footprint of this creature. So then I got on this big horse [Chico], and it weighed 1,200 lbs. With four feet distributing its weight, its tracks didn't go as deep as the tracks of the creature. So Roger filmed all of that for whatever purpose to use. We really didn't have much in mind at that time. Yes we got this, we got that. Tom has sang a song about when we came down to Bluff Creek to Al Hodgson's variety store, and Roger said, “I got that son-of-a-buck on film.” So this kinda’ went on. Roger had met some people up in Canada that he had talked to about track dogs. The guy that he talked to out there said that, “My dogs will track any creature I put them on. They're trained to track anything.” I never knew the guy, and I didn't know anything about the dogs. Roger had called from Mr. Hodgson's store down there and I didn't pay much attention to what he said. He told me that he asked them to bring the track dogs down. [Actually, Patterson let Hodgson do that job.] We planned on going and taking the film over to the city next closest. I get Yreka and Eureka mixed up, and forgive me for that. Whatever city, we took it to the airport to send it up to his brother-in-law, a gentleman by the name of Al DeAtley, to get the film developed. Since Roger fell down and all this excitement and everything, we had no idea if there was any film footage at all that amounted to anything. We went back to camp after I took him over there. I went by that variety store [on the way back, presumably], and I thought, Well I'll pick up some cardboard boxes if they're going to bring the track dogs down. I'll ride back up there and cover those tracks. We got back in there about 12:00 at night and Roger was sleeping up in the overshot and I was down in the bed of the truck. Of course we were excited talking about it, what he saw, what I saw, because we didn't totally agree on everything, because I was looking at it through two blues [eyes] and he was looking at it through the camera. About three o'clock in the morning I heard a little bit of rain coming down. I lay there for about 15 minutes and it started kicking up. So I got up and shook ol' Roger's foot and I said, “Hey, get up let's go cover those tracks with those cardboard boxes.” By then it had picked up pretty good . . . the rain is coming down, hitting the top of this canvas on top of this horse van. And he said, “Oh Bob, it isn’t gonna’ rain; the moon was shinin’ bright when we went to bed.” I said, “Yep, but it's raining Roger.” And Roger won't get up, so I said, “I'm gonna' go cover those tracks.” I had taken these cardboard boxes and put them outside the truck when we got there. I looked out there and these cardboard boxes were just soggy messes. So I realized then that there was no way I was going to carry any of those soggy boxes up there about 3 miles on a horse; even though this horse was good, it wouldn’t have done any good. So I rode up there. It wasn't even quite daylight. And there was dead trees there, so I thought, I gotta' cover these tracks some way. So I started pullin' that dead bark off the trees and covering these tracks. Which later on I was glad . . . Bob Titmus was glad, John Green, René Dahinden, they were all real happy that I covered a bunch of these tracks. Cause it rained so hard that that little creek that was about 12 inches deep.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I never said both Interdimensional and part of a Simulated Universe, don't exaggerate my position :)
:) i didnt mean too, i actually never saw The Matrix so i'm not actually sure what it is. i thought it was an interdimensional thing.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I can just see whoever is responsible thinking "how many more clues do I have to give them? It walks like a man, an inhuman man, yet has breasts. It leaves impressions consistent with a 500 pound object, but there are no 500 pound objects available to make them. It has shown up repeatedly in nearly every state in the most advanced, developed country on earth, even those with nary a mountain in sight. It has never been hit by a car, died later to be recovered, stumbled into a town searching for food. It was filmed at close enough range to convince perhaps the most relevant observers (costume / special effects experts) that it could not be a hoax consistent with the tools available in the year 1967.

Guardian angel. think about it.
Patterson is dying. He needs faith. His Guardian Angel pulls the bigfoot drawing from Patterson's mind..and walks across the beach in a bigfoot "suit".
I think i'm digging that explanation.
 

purpleivan

Member
The problem I have with an interdimensional/matrix explanation for the Patterson Gimlin film is that it seems like an end run attempt around any request for proof, as it can be used as an explanation for anything, extraordinary or mundane.

A bigfoot film when bigfoot can't exist = interdimensional/matrix.
UFO's that "defy the laws of physics" = interdimensional/matrix.
Where do all the odd socks go = interdimensional/matrix.

Essentially it's no different to "God did it" as it posits that the agent responsible is utterly different and or beyond us in their understanding of and control over our universe, that they might as well be a deity. I've even heard proponents of these kind of theories argue (I think it was on a Metabunk thread) that attempts to investigate these kind of phenomena are themselves interfered with directly by the mysterious "hand behind the curtain", making any logical/scientific investigation futile.
 

jamesrav

Member
Essentially it's no different to "God did it" as it posits that the agent responsible is utterly different and or beyond us in their understanding of and control over our universe, that they might as well be a deity. I've even heard proponents of these kind of theories argue (I think it was on a Metabunk thread) that attempts to investigate these kind of phenomena are themselves interfered with directly by the mysterious "hand behind the curtain", making any logical/scientific investigation futile.
of course what you say is true, nobody can 'argue' otherwise. At this point, and perhaps forever, it's an unproveable alternative. We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2). We agree it's not a real animal, even Meldrum has to question his belief on that position despite his always calm, steady, delivery of 'supporting' facts (and I have emailed him on a point and he responded with a detailed reply, so he seems like the nicest guy). But the hoax idea for PG is equally untenable in my mind, there's no cohesive theory that explains all facets, without contradictions. In a court case the prosecutor lays out a single theory, he's not all over the place with disparate ideas. It was funny when in 'Get Smart' , Don Adams, when confronted with some fact would counter with "would you believe ...". That's the feel I get here about the PG hoax case. When told that Bob H. is/was 6'1" and the McClarin overlay (totally endorsed by the skeptical BBC host) shows a subject "slightly taller" (his words) than 6'5" Jim McClarin, I havent' gotten an explanation ("would you believe elevator shoes?"). When told that the PG casts were made by something to a depth that indicated a weight of perhaps 500 pounds, I get no explanation ("would you believe a pogo stick with a fake foot?"). It's the 100 cups of weak coffee quip from Shermer, but applied in the other direction , and with equally ineffective results. Maybe someone will be bold enough to say Bob H. wasnt in the suit, it was someone else (TALLER). That takes away Greg Long's book, and you are back to square 1: Who was in the suit? What very tall, very heavy, individual from Yakima or vicinity has kept a secret for 55 years without once bragging "that was me, and I have the proof". With only 2 options, your .999 probability option is 'hoax' , there is no alternative. So really 'proving' the hoax is unnecessary, its hoax by process of elimination. QED. I realize it's the coldest of cold cases, but at one time 55 years ago, it was front page news. Where were the metabunkers back then, it should have been a slam dunk to prove hoax. Fame to whoever could have, when everything was fresh. If it was 'known all over Yakima' that it was Bob H. in the suit, how come no reporter followed-up? And that 'known all over' line, wouldnt that imply Bob H. was leaking some info, despite a vow not to? How can it have been 'known all over' back then and nobody thought to break the story. How did it endure till 2005 as a secret to the outside world? ("would you believe Yakima has no phones?")
 

Mauro

Active Member
The problem I have with an interdimensional/matrix explanation for the Patterson Gimlin film is that it seems like an end run attempt around any request for proof, as it can be used as an explanation for anything, extraordinary or mundane.

A bigfoot film when bigfoot can't exist = interdimensional/matrix.
UFO's that "defy the laws of physics" = interdimensional/matrix.
Where do all the odd socks go = interdimensional/matrix.

Essentially it's no different to "God did it" as it posits that the agent responsible is utterly different and or beyond us in their understanding of and control over our universe, that they might as well be a deity. I've even heard proponents of these kind of theories argue (I think it was on a Metabunk thread) that attempts to investigate these kind of phenomena are themselves interfered with directly by the mysterious "hand behind the curtain", making any logical/scientific investigation futile.
Thumbs up, well written!
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
of course what you say is true, nobody can 'argue' otherwise. At this point, and perhaps forever, it's an unproveable alternative. We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2). We agree it's not a real animal, even Meldrum has to question his belief on that position despite his always calm, steady, delivery of 'supporting' facts (and I have emailed him on a point and he responded with a detailed reply, so he seems like the nicest guy). But the hoax idea for PG is equally untenable in my mind, there's no cohesive theory that explains all facets, without contradictions. In a court case the prosecutor lays out a single theory, he's not all over the place with disparate ideas. It was funny when in 'Get Smart' , Don Adams, when confronted with some fact would counter with "would you believe ...". That's the feel I get here about the PG hoax case. When told that Bob H. is/was 6'1" and the McClarin overlay (totally endorsed by the skeptical BBC host) shows a subject "slightly taller" (his words) than 6'5" Jim McClarin, I havent' gotten an explanation ("would you believe elevator shoes?"). When told that the PG casts were made by something to a depth that indicated a weight of perhaps 500 pounds, I get no explanation ("would you believe a pogo stick with a fake foot?"). It's the 100 cups of weak coffee quip from Shermer, but applied in the other direction , and with equally ineffective results. Maybe someone will be bold enough to say Bob H. wasnt in the suit, it was someone else (TALLER). That takes away Greg Long's book, and you are back to square 1: Who was in the suit? What very tall, very heavy, individual from Yakima or vicinity has kept a secret for 55 years without once bragging "that was me, and I have the proof". With only 2 options, your .999 probability option is 'hoax' , there is no alternative. So really 'proving' the hoax is unnecessary, its hoax by process of elimination. QED. I realize it's the coldest of cold cases, but at one time 55 years ago, it was front page news. Where were the metabunkers back then, it should have been a slam dunk to prove hoax. Fame to whoever could have, when everything was fresh. If it was 'known all over Yakima' that it was Bob H. in the suit, how come no reporter followed-up? And that 'known all over' line, wouldnt that imply Bob H. was leaking some info, despite a vow not to? How can it have been 'known all over' back then and nobody thought to break the story. How did it endure till 2005 as a secret to the outside world? ("would you believe Yakima has no phones?")
The chances that there are some unknown facts, misremembered details, odd co-incidences and possibly outright lies and fabrications that makes a hoax possible are all known and well understood properties of reality and human events as we know them.

If there is a biscuit missing from the jar and you ask your toddler if he took it and he says no, do you immediately assume that a multidimensional entity stole your last chocolate hobnob?
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
Never knew the bigfoot rabbit hole went so deep until reading this thread haha... I've always thought that famous video just looked like a guy in a suit to me, but never considered aspects like how advanced the suit must have been at the time. Pretty interesting stuff.

But I don't understand, if bigfoot is real, why can't just walk into the forest and find bigfoot society? Like we can find gorillas and chimpanzees. Is the idea that there are only a handful of them? But why would that be the case? Not that I'm seriously entertaining the idea that bigfoot is real, just wondering what bigfoot believers would say about it.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Never knew the bigfoot rabbit hole went so deep until reading this thread haha... I've always thought that famous video just looked like a guy in a suit to me, but never considered aspects like how advanced the suit must have been at the time. Pretty interesting stuff.

But I don't understand, if bigfoot is real, why can't just walk into the forest and find bigfoot society? Like we can find gorillas and chimpanzees. Is the idea that there are only a handful of them? But why would that be the case? Not that I'm seriously entertaining the idea that bigfoot is real, just wondering what bigfoot believers would say about it.
Some will point to newly discovered species, often missing that some 'new' species are of animals that were already known to exist, but were previously thought to be all part of a known species and are declared a new species after genetic evaluation of a specific population.

Then some others will opine that bigfoot must be in some way supernatural/paranormal/trans-dimensional i.e. the lack of evidence is actually evidence of an extraordinary explanation, this is a known thing in UFOlogy as well and is often called "woo."
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Some will point to newly discovered species, often missing that some 'new' species are of animals that were already known to exist, but were previously thought to be all part of a known species and are declared a new species after genetic evaluation of a specific population.
Not always. Looking for bigfoot relatives, I found out there's a newly discovered species of water bear:
Article:
A newfound species of tardigrade, or "water bear," with tendril-festooned eggs has been discovered in the parking lot of an apartment building in Japan.

Kazuharu Arakawa, a researcher who studies the molecular biology of tardigrades at Japan's Keio University, discovered the newfound species in a small sample of moss. He'd scraped the moss from the parking lot of his apartment in Tsuruoka City along the Sea of Japan.

They're microscopically tiny.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Not always. Looking for bigfoot relatives, I found out there's a newly discovered species of water bear:
Article:
A newfound species of tardigrade, or "water bear," with tendril-festooned eggs has been discovered in the parking lot of an apartment building in Japan.

Kazuharu Arakawa, a researcher who studies the molecular biology of tardigrades at Japan's Keio University, discovered the newfound species in a small sample of moss. He'd scraped the moss from the parking lot of his apartment in Tsuruoka City along the Sea of Japan.

They're microscopically tiny.
Oh well, yeah for microfauna new stuff gets discovered all the time, megafauna is different.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
We can all agree there are either 2 options (hoax | real animal) or 3 (something besides those 2).
Many of us might agree with that. Perhaps all of us. Where you lose me is in jumping from "something else besides those 2" to "therefore unprovable interdimensional something for which there is zero evidence." That looks to me like a false... trichotomy? Is that really the only third option? Why not a demon, or a time traveler, or a secret CIA experimental hologram, or alien UFO pilot, or...? Once you open the door to things which are not known to exist and for which there is no evidence, the options seem to extend well beyond the one you picked.

In any case, if the answer is "hoax" (which I think it is for reasons gone into in this thread) then options 3, 4, 5 ad infinitum are not relevant.

(If I am wrong, and you have evidence for interdimensional bigfoot, I'd be interested to see it. But it is a speculation I have seen before, and so far nobody putting it forward has had anything to back it up.)
 
Top