Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability

[Guest BJohnson]

BJohnson, don't know how much time you have spent blazing trail through the woods. But if you have you would notice you soon learn not to walk like you would down 5th Ave. Everything that grows will eventually end up on the forest floor to grab ya, stab ya or trip ya. I can remember talking walks with my mother and tripping on the sidewalk from a broken slab of concrete that was only elevated a little bit. My mom would scream at me to get my feet off the ground when I walk. I think that a creature who lives in the forest (particularly one that walks on two legs) would instinctively learn to get their feet off the ground. It may look funny to those who live on 5th Ave. but it works in the woods.

I would suggest going out in the woods and having someone video you from behind on a couple different types of trail types, while you are walking.

I can't do it myself, but I think you'll find you do not exhibit this rear leg kick up despite the type of trail, rocky or pitted. To me this type of walk for a natural creature does -not- look efficient.

In fact, one member said he tried to duplicate this type of walk which heavily involves the hamstrings, walking on a tread mill and it tired him out rather quickly.

Here's the gait analysis. I don't think you'll find yourself or a two-legged creature normally walking like this no matter what the circumstances, woods, street, rocky path or trail blazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6boWouLfe8&NR=1

===

Now if the brush is so high, such as knee high intermittent rows of thorn bushes, such that you are almost 'hurdling', then that might be different. But in the PG-film, that is not the construction of the trackway.

Edited September 11, 2009 by BJohnson

[wiiawiwb]

I was considering this last night after looking at the infamous frame where we see the full bottom of the left foot, lifted up several inches from the ground, the leg bent at nearly 90 degrees. At first I thought "It's almost as though 'Patty' is showing us the bottom of his/her foot". But that seems silly - what other reason is there for this odd sight, this odd walk?

Nothing really explains kicking up the rear leg to a near 90 degree angle and lifting the entire foot clear of the ground by several inches, except a human -trying- to walk 'funny'.

Thoughts?

Let me get this straight. You're trying to say that the 90-degree angle indicates to you that a human in a suit hoaxed the PGF. Forget all the problems, and restrictions, that a suit presents when trying to walk in one. Let's just take you, or anyone else you know. Try to replicate that walk. Keep in mind that you must have 41" steps and you must be fluid and flowing, not choppy and hopping.

You can't do it....period. If you think you can go ahead and YouTube for us so we can see.

[Guest Tontar]

Arron:

Excellent. The next question should be obvious, when do we (or I) get to see it? I am dreading that the answer might have a capital M and a capital Q in it. :-)

I don't have any control over releases and airdates, but I believe late this fall might not be an unreal expectation. A few letters come to mind, but neither is an M or a Q.

Ah, then we aren't looking at a Monster Quest episode to feature it? As much as I have enjoyed the series, they always seem to follow a formulaic pattern which teases people into watching, taunts them with tidbits of information, and withholds as much as it unveils. Keeps us tuning in for future programs I suppose. But if there are releases and airdates, then we're probably looking a some form of television program then?

Well. Gigantofooticus and i disagree a lot, and he and i have been able to maintain a respectful collaboration in seeking some truthful final result, so disagreement is certainly no problem for me. The problem lies in people who think any disagreement proves me wrong and them right, instead of simply being different perspectives on the problem, or different assumptions as a basis. The worse problem is people who set out to disagree with me for the sole purpuse of trying to establish some basis to say I'm wrong (even if they have to distort the facts to get to their disagreeing position).

I was doing some reading over at the skeptical forum, as listed in one of your commentaries. I thought that in your commentary you were being rather harsh and negative, while promoting a positive lifestyle over a negative one. Then I read that forum, and saw how easily it would be to get totally pissed off. It looks like some people seem to think that being rational and logical means also being rude and cynical, and continually active with assaults while waiting for stories to develop. The way to be realistic is to weigh evidence as it is presented, and not prejudging it or the presenters prior to that presentation. Regarding your study and reports, I thought they were well done and should have satisfied the more objective and rational skeptics, although my brief look at the later posts didn't indicate that anyone really cared to do an honest review.

How does this film, or rather the scans, compare to what was supposedly obtained for the NASI report, which I think has been reportedly used for the MK Davis stabilizations?

Since NASI scan material isn't available, i can't compare it. As far as i know, MK used Rick Noll's scan images, not NASI.

Hmmm, so how many scans have been done on this film anyway? NASI has their own scans, Rick Noll has his own scans, and now you have your newer scans. In your film copy pedigree tree will you be listing who has what and what films those were scanned from as well?

In terms of comparing copies, that is still a work in progress, and I've decided to wait on commenting on that until the analysis is complete, because incomplete work doesn't really help anybody, it just causes more confusion. There are contridictions in the copy history I hope to clear up, and that part will take time to do right. There's nothing suspicious going on with it, just that a whole lot of mis-information has been accumulating over the 42 years, and so it's more about clearing up the mis-information.

Good work, as always, and I appreciate the updates as well. Still can't wait to see what you have come up with as far as stabilizations.

Aaron

[Guest Tontar]

I would suggest going out in the woods and having someone video you from behind on a couple different types of trail types, while you are walking.

I can't do it myself, but I think you'll find you do not exhibit this rear leg kick up despite the type of trail, rocky or pitted. To me this type of walk for a natural creature does -not- look efficient.

In fact, one member said he tried to duplicate this type of walk which heavily involves the hamstrings, walking on a tread mill and it tired him out rather quickly.

Here's the gait analysis. I don't think you'll find yourself or a two-legged creature normally walking like this no matter what the circumstances, woods, street, rocky path or trail blazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6boWouLfe8&NR=1

===

Now if the brush is so high, such as knee high intermittent rows of thorn bushes, such that you are almost 'hurdling', then that might be different. But in the PG-film, that is not the construction of the trackway.

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of a foregone conclusion dictating the result of the analysis. note that the computerized skeleton incorporates the mid tarsal break, that it's proportions don't even come close to matching Patty in the film, and are laid out such that it looks like an upright gorilla, which Patty clearly does not. I have watched this program's sequence over and over, frame by frame even, and in order to get this gait analysis the skeleton ends up not following Patty's movement very closely at all. The skeleton falls outside of Patty's silhouette as often as it falls within it. It's the kind of "research" that gives research a bad name. The sort that attempts to prove that Patty is not human by placing every aspect outside of human parameters, scale, proportion, funky, improbable gait, impractical foot architecture, and so on. So alien it has to be real.

The problem is, someone comes up with some theory, promotes it forever, gets it on TV, and then it becomes gospel truth. That kinematic study, for all its coolness and television fame, is just a guess based on some predetermined givens, and those predetermined givens are only assumptions, not proven facts. saying patty is real, or bigfoot is way out of human range because somebody's theory found its way onto a television show, is really not very scientific, or logical.

Truth is, Patty is exhibiting gait that is not far from natural human gait in wild terrain. That gait is not all that alien. It's pretty darn human, which is exactly what I would suspect from BOTH a man in a suit as well as a real live bigfoot.

And also, people don't just walk like that in the woods. Go to a dog show sometime and you will see people walking such that their feet nearly hit their butts with each step! Go barefoot for a while in a field or o a stream bed, and lo and behold after a stubbed toe or two, you'll find your feet lifting high enough to prevent another stubbed toe. If "I" were a real bigfoot, stomping around in a log and branch strewn creek bed, you can bet your last penny that I'd be lifting my bare feet to prevent snagging a toe on a stick. If one depends on their feet for everything, obtaining food, shelter and transportation, then keeping them in good shape would require a certain kind of care when walking.

One thing I hope to see in my lifetime is the discovery of a real bigfoot, brought into the light, seen as a real, authentic living and breathing entity, and then seeing how close or how far away it is from all the speculation and claims that have come before it. I would not be surprised if bigfoot actually did exist, and if it turned 90% of the theories on their ears.

[Guest Tontar]

I was considering this last night after looking at the infamous frame where we see the full bottom of the left foot, lifted up several inches from the ground, the leg bent at nearly 90 degrees. At first I thought "It's almost as though 'Patty' is showing us the bottom of his/her foot". But that seems silly - what other reason is there for this odd sight, this odd walk?

In mammals, locomotion is very efficient. They don't lift their feet or legs higher than is needed to accomplish forward progress.

If you look at the locomotion seen in the PG-film, it almost looks like the leg movements of an elephant, or a relatively ponderous animal moving on all fours. But 'Patty' is walking on two feet.

So what are the other reasons we see this.

Then I had an odd thought. What if the 'director' of the PG-film (assuming for the moment a mime-in-a-suit) said, 'Walk the track but be careful not to walk like a human'? Then it would be up to the mime to make some alteration of the "walk" to make it appear non-human. It wouldn't matter if the movement was inefficient, it only mattered that the walk not be like a 'normal human walk'.

Again, just brainstorming, but every action you see in the film has to have a reason, and this 'inefficient walk' is one that seems without reason.

To return to this experimental thesis, think of the 'ways' one could alter a walk so it wasn't normal. You could lift the knees higher, but that would seem like 'marching'. You could walk as though you were stepping over things, but that would be more like a march as well, lifting the forward foot higher.

Nothing really explains kicking up the rear leg to a near 90 degree angle and lifting the entire foot clear of the ground by several inches, except a human -trying- to walk 'funny'.

Thoughts?

Here's a vid showing an elephant walking. Note the front legs. They move through the gait with a kick up, bending the front leg at about 90 degrees. This is due to the way the elephant is built, I suppose. But it's similar to the way the PG-creature lifts its foot:

I've been looking at this film for a long time, and it always seems that certain frames get used to prove some point, and if other frames are used randomly, those points may end up being disproved. For example, a lot has been said about Patty using a gait that lifts the feet too high for normal human walking, that the lower leg is lifted parallel to the ground. certainly we see that in a few frames, but looking at the entire film we see that is not her standard, normal gait.

Take a look at these frames and you will see that her forward moving leg does not lift nearly as high in these sequences as in the few where she may be trying to step over sticks, branches, what have you, trying to avoid tripping. "I" always lift my legs in an uncharacteristic way when I am walking in the woods, on the beach, where I am trying to avoid something. But once clearing the stuff, returning to a normal gait. Patty does this same exact thing.

Now, showing the frames where she walks with a more normal gait, not lifting her feet unhumanly high, is not what most believers want to hear or see, but it is an important aspect of this film. Patty walks a lot like us, lifts her feet high when she needs to, and doesn't when she doesn't need to. I hate the idea that Patty HAS to be so alien to us in every way, from walking, to arm length, to lower leg length, to height, in order to be authentic. I don't know what she is either way, but she seems far more human, even in gait, than anything else. I'd think that if bigfoot does exist, it is far more human than we realize. You can see it in the film if one observes closely. Patty may be a real, live bigfoot, and if she is, then bigfoot is very much like a human.

Hopefully this .gif file will come across with motion, because it shows a couple of things. It shows a gait that looks distinctively human, as smooth as a human, which also means that there is foot impact which jars the legs when the foot plants, and it also shows some really interesting bits that can suggest Patty is real, as well as some things that can suggest she is a suit.

First, taken as a whole, the fur all along the thigh is problematic to me. Stare at this clip for a while, make it loop over and over again, and you will see a buckling crease where the rear of the thigh meets the butt. There is movement in the butt, contrary to the diaper butt skeptics say, but that movement is not necessarily convincing me that Patty is real. There is a persistent ridge crossing the upper thigh which seems to increase in size or depth when the leg moves rearward. Like a layered over pair of pants that got hiked up while pulling on an outer pair of pants. I'm not saying that is what I think it is, just describing what it looks like. Since this is most like a human subject, it's fair to say that I have never seen these kinds of folds and buckling in a human that is not wearing clothes. Then there is the thigh bulge lower down. There's a bit of debris on the film frame, just one frame, that gives the appearance of a shadow, giving the impression that something flips up, the famous hernia bulge, but if you ignore that bit of debris and watch the bulge through all the frames, it remains a bulge, not flipping up, not laying down, just remains a constant bulge. Those aspects cause doubt about Patty being non-human

Then again, watching the sides of the body twist with each step, and seemingly stretch in the process, looks amazingly like real tissue. Plus, the joint where the arm meets the body, also has this same skin-like integrity, as does the knee and so on. Everything about the way Patty moves speaks to me of a pretty casual, if not hurried, natural human gait considering the terrain "she" is moving through. That naturalness suggests authenticity. The similarity to human gait also suggests authenticity to me, where just the opposite seems to be the most common preference. Most people want the gait to be so clearly non-human in order for it to be an indication of authenticity, but I disagree. A being that has evolved similar to us, or parallel to us, or is a relative of ours, something so much like us that walks upright should by alla ccounts walk very much like us, so a similarity to us should be seen. If Patty walked like some mysterious boogy man, I'd suspect that it was contrived so that viewers would think of it as some boogy man creature. I don't believe in the boogy man, I believe in real animals, things that can evolve a place in the world, establish a niche in their environment, and act as a real animal should.

So for me, the Patty mystery is still a mystery. Is it the real deal? Who knows, all we can do is speculate. So much about Patty says real, but there are persistent issues that say fake, so balancing those things comes down to a preference of what we WANT to believe, since we can see realistic elements as well as possibly hoaxed elements in the same film clip. It's a hard one to reconcile. It's not such a clear choice.

[Guest kfoster]

I have not read thru all this thread, but the arguments have been the same for the last 20 years. When I first looked into the subject, I took the time to personally contact most of the persons that had been involved just before, during and after the film was made. I am convinced no hoaxing took place, though some memories of specifics may have been lost. The tracks cast in series by Titmus after the event are every bit genuine sasquatch tracks, matching completely those personally found by myself and those I have investigated since. They were also lined up like an invisible tightrope had been walked, just like any other adult sasquatch leaves when traveling right out at a fair pace. This lack of straddle and little toe-out is unique to sasquatch and not to humans, though humans ask to walk at regular walking speed while keeping their knees at or beyond a 15 degree bend will also leave a track-line with little to no straddle and with little to no toe-out (angle of gait). Sasquatch is unique, but wonderfully made for their environment and life style. The tracks were real at the exact location and exact time that Roger Patterson shot the footage.

I cringe when skeptics degrade Roger Patterson as a perpetrator of a hoax with little study of the man himself, as he worked hard to get the film he made, with some luck involved to of course. He was certainly in the right place to be searching, as there were several sasquatch in that particular drainage at the time for some reason for a few years before and just after the filming by evidence of the tracks. Tracking conditions were good in that area too, as witnessed by many that found tracks in the general area. Patricia Patterson still has feelings, just like any other human being, so anyone wanting to call Roger a liar maybe should at least give her consideration. He was not a liar or a hoaxer, but rather just some guy that saw a mystery needing answers, just like many of us.

As for the film itself, size of the creature involved is somewhat irrelevant, although I would like to know myself. I like the comparisons to others of known height at the scene, made shortly after the film was made for comparison. I also thought that using the known foot length as done by Krantz and others was useful. However, none have been completely precise. As for using the foot as a 14.5 foot tape measure in the film frame where the bottom of the foot is shown has problems with exposure and also has problems with focal length and determination of where the foot ends and the heel starts, making most underestimate the height because they are counting some 2 inches or so of the upper heel above where the foot would have tracked on the ground. Other measurements in other frames of the film where the side of the foot is visible and in the same focal length seem to reveal a comparative measurement that more closely fits the 7 to 7.5 foot height that match more closely the other estimations done by comparison of the film to known objects size in other and tend more toward her being just over 7 foot tall.

As a wildlife artist, I marvel at the beautiful female sasquatch filmed by Roger Patterson. Her anatomy and musculature are incredible in detail and in use. Every muscle group can be seen in orchestration in their connections to move the skeletal structure in the unique sasquatch manner. I get the most out of the film by watching the full film over and over, rather than each frame one at a time. Each frame loses some detail, but seen in succession the film as a whole reveals the creature involved. If I do artwork of a creature, I must observe it in life to get a full sense of the creature itself, rather than just looking at two dimensional photos. The photos help of course, but are rather static. Life comes to artwork by observation of life. The way sasquatch walk is very efficient because of the spring tendon attachments that lift the leg forward from the pelvic structure rather than just the falling forward nature of the way humans walk. Humans are really built more for long distance running in more open areas, such as the way man historically hunted by "persistence hunting". Sasquatch walk more like humans sprint. There is no lost energy in the sasquatch walk due to bobbing up and down of the upper body. Sasquatch glide along at ease with the loaded tendons lifting the leg forward and upward. This spring loading of the unique tendon structure also prevents hyper-extension of the leg and also results in the knee not straightening out behind as the foot is lifted, which is why the foot comes up so far behind just prior to moving forward. I wish I had that kind of leg attachment to my body for hiking in the mountains as lifting ones foot upslope would be soooo much easier. One could hike uphill nearly as easily as on the level with such an arrangement of pelvis, tendon and leg musculature. Pretty unique to the point that I am considering building something like it to wear as a belt on my waist with suspenders to attach bungee cords down the front of my leg to my knee for hiking in the hills. A spring leg lifter if you will. This unique leg structure also has some to do with the way the foot is structured, as impact, power-through, and lift-off of the foot need a different foot to go with the the leg motions. It is just marvelous in orchestration from top to bottom and revealed right there in that film Patterson made. Want to see a sasquatch??..watch the Patterson film and you are seeing one. It is a grand female sasquatch, probably a mommy, with all the attributes that make her a sasquatch and all the attributes that make her attractive to a male sasquatch, including her rather showy butt. Her butt may not be all that attractive to me, but neither is the ugly butt of a receptive female chimp.

If one says that the Patterson film is a hoax, then by gosh lets see you build a suit to match the beauty of the female sasquatch filmed by Patterson. I want to see the varying hair length and each muscle group working in orchestration just as seen in the Patterson film. Lets see the unique femur and tibia lengths in the suit and rotation joints exactly matching that in the film. I want to see the incredible width at the shoulder rotation joints in the hoax suit. I don't want to see a Chewbaca suit where no muscles, nor anything else unique can be seen. I sure don't want to see a 60's era gorilla suit.

Nobody made a suit to hoax Patterson and Gimlin and Patterson didn't make it to hoax you. The sad thing is that tracks are becoming much rarer than they were in 1967, and will likely stop altogether in the near future. I'm glad I got to meet a sasquatch and wonder at it's tracks while I lived on this earth. Someday man will say that sasquatch used to be real, just like homo foresiensis used to be real. I'm sorry for you that have never met or tracked one of them in person.

BTW, I have enough decades of bowhunting experience to know that if I surprise a large predator at very close range accidently, it does not run away, it walks away, to make sure I'm not giving chase, usually glancing at me a few times while moving off. Wildlife might be scared of man and you might think you own the woods, but if you get close enough to about any big animal, then they own the woods, oh yes. Slap a wild moose on the butt and see what happens. Push a sasquatch too close and see who owns the woods.

Keith Foster

[Guest Crowlogic]

Keith it is my contention that Sasquatch have already gone extinct. Thanks for your post

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

Now that was a Good Piece Of Posting, A really nice read

Thanks Keith ~

Peace

Tim

[Guest Tontar]

I agree, a beautiful bit of writing. But I also have to say that I believe that it is extremely presumptuous and takes a lot of creative license. Describing in detail the anatomy, tendons, muscles, joints, you name it, is every bit as wishful as a description from "the other side" which points out the keys in the pocket, the zipper fob, the padding outlines and so on. Detailing the lifestyle of a bigfoot, or its anatomy, or its behavior, or how it moves, CAN'T be done until it is proven without a doubt that they even exist. You don't "know" that Patty was a real bigfoot, just as the skeptics don't "know" that it was a hoax. Everyone believes what they want to believe, and everyone cherry picks the bits and pieces of evidence they need to support their belief. While many of os "wish" that Patty was real, there's no way in the world we can know that beyond a reasonable doubt, all due respect to those involved at the time and since. There are elements in the film that easily can contradict either point of view. For example, you want to talk about beautiful musculature? How about describing what the two prominences are that jut out from the front of Patty's armpits. A suit proponent would call those folds in the foam padding and fur material. The best I have heard from a believer is that, well, we don't know what unique muscles or glands a bigfoot might have. Explain those prominences, and also why the thighs have such inflexible and squared off "pads" under the skin. Quads run lengthwise, in apes as well as humans, and presumably in bigfoot as well. Why then is there a completely horizontal "pad" on the outer thigh?

[Guest kfoster]

Every year I too think perhaps sasquatch is completely extinct already too, trusting much more in what track evidence we find than trust in sightings. I also trust track events less now than I did before there was publicized detail on what sasquatch tracks really looked like. I now would almost have to do the tracking myself or see a series of casts or photos of prints of the same event to be completely convinced of any one track find these days. I was a complete and thorough skeptic of sasquatch prior to my own experience with one of them and finding tracks myself where no one would have hoaxed them. I have never seen a sasquatch, but I am convinced that the combination of tracks I found and the incredibly loud airy screaming series of roars from the other side of a bunch of willows that my sons and I experienced pointed directly to this creature of legend. Nothing in nature as science knows it makes the vocalizations we heard up close and personal and no known creature in North America can even muster half the volume that shook us to the core in a wilderness area where no one would be trying to fake the sounds, even if they could. The sounds really did rattle our torsos as we could feel it at the time we were hearing it. I wonder now if sasquatch must have some kind of resonating chamber in the throat or chest region to make the sounds that are so pervasive. I can hardly imagine that just big lungs and a vocal tract can do that. I don't know though, perhaps a sasquatch can make those sounds with lungs alone, as at least some of them are much larger than I ever dreamed possible according to some of the tracks I have investigated. Incredibly huge and heavy. I think, from looking at the tracks in person, that sasquatch carry about the same weight per square inch of foot bottom as an unshod adult human and have seen tracks that put some of them over 1000 pounds in weight when one puts the math to it. The tracks were definitely real, I am convinced to the core of such. Patty's tracks are real too, so I accept the film as genuine, for that and a host of other reasons after much much study of the film. I probably would have never even began to looking into the mystery prior to my experience. My parents had even seen a sasquatch in the wide open in that general area prior and I considered they had somehow made a mistake in identification of a bear. I was wrong and had to later apologize to them about my know-it-all attitude about what and what does not live in the western forests of North America. So I guess maybe I do have some tolerance for complete skepticism on the whole subject, but I tire of those who degrade others without a full and thorough personal investigation into any one particular incident. I personally think that there is no convincing evidence that sasquatch live anywhere in North America east of the Rockies, but I could be completely wrong about that, having never personally investigated any events there. Heck, after all I have been through, a large part of my brain can not "believe" that sasquatch is even a real creature anywhere. I argue with myself continually on the subject, but the evidence wins out over my own preconception of what is and what is not possible. Sasquatch, by evidence, must be real, in spite of what I simply think.

I am considering building a full scale faux taxidermy model of Patty, which is why I perused this thread and others that Munn has started. I hope the project will help me learn some of the idiosyncrasies of the sasquatch anatomy in more detail. The underlying sasquatch anatomy will be much easier to sculpt than the fur and skin covering required for the project. I am currently perplexed at how I am going to vary the hair length convincingly while maintaining at least a somewhat natural look. There seems to be a fur layering of underhair, short but still perhaps fairly well populated with hairs on some portions of the body, such as the sides of the torso where the arms rub. There are areas of the sides of the lower leg just below the knee where on can see the grand tendon structure pretty well, so that is populated perhaps with much shorter or sparser hair too, or one would not be able to see those tendons in action. How in the world is one going to cover the form so intricately. Just the plan to build the static faux model with hair, really makes me see how impossible it would have been to make a suit capable of moving would have been, regardless of the completely incredible unhuman proportions of the rotational joints involved. No one in Hollywood has even come close to any "suit" such as displayed in the film Patterson made. Though sasquatch itself is impossible, faking that film is even more impossible in my opinion based on the art and history of the art of make-up. The more I study the film with a critical eye, the more I am awed by it, not the other way around.

I really can not see any anatomical mistakes in the whole creature filmed by Patterson, only seeing needed anatomical differences from the human form as far as muscle placement/size and tissue placements that make a sasquatch a sasquatch rather than a big human form. Sasquatch is only generally human in form, but differs quite distinctly in many ways, exhibited very well in the Patterson film made where very real sasquatch tracks were very well documented by many persons right after the film was shot. Oh yes, Patty's tracks are real tracks made by a real sasquatch, so why should I question the film itself. Another thing is that Bob Titmus documented tracks of this same particular sasquatch's footprints at least 9 years prior to the filming location track documentation, by evidence of track casts and photos that fit 100% the exact morphology and size. So, Patty was a fully grown adult female sasquatch for at least 9 years prior to when Patterson shot the footage. A skeptic might say that Roger had used the Titmus tracks cast 9 years earlier as his form for the foot in the suit, however the flexibility of the foot is self evident in the series of tracks photographed and cast at the film site after the film was made and Patterson and Gimlin cast the most static looking of the tracks there after the film was made, evidently completely ignoring the needed revelations that more imperfect tracks would reveal. Why build a completely natural functioning foot on the fake suit, and then ignore documenting the tracks that show that function? Having investigated tracks myself with the unique mid-tarsal break well defined, completely unassociated with the Bluff Creek area and in circumstances where I am 100% convinced that no one hoaxed the tracks I investigated, I am completely convinced the tracks at the Patterson film location are 100% real and not faked. There is just too much documentation of Patty's footprint before and after the film was made that points completely to a real foot for me to come to any other conclusion in spite of my own tendency toward skepticism. Nope, we are seeing a real live breathing female sasquatch in all her grand form the film Patterson shot, by reason of a list of critical criteria as long as Patty's arms. I really have been critical in my research into the film, even to the point of interview of associated persons. None were out to hoax you or me, of that I am also convinced by reason of those interviews and interviews done of those involved that had died prior to my pursuit of the truth in the particular matter. I wish I could take my fellow skeptics back in time with me all along in my quest and where I have been and I think they might also be convinced, because if this complete skeptic can be convinced, anyone can. It is just a matter of deep study and research that I have come to the conclusions I have come to. I started out trying to prove the film was hoaxed and ended concluding it was completely genuine. I hope that other fellow skeptics come to the same conclusion through more study. I identify with those who simply cannot believe Patterson got a genuine sasquatch on film, as our logic screams that sasquatch is an impossibility. The critical evidence however points very decidedly the other way. Now we are forced to accept the creature that leaves the tracks, whether we want to or not.

This relic of the Pliestocene we call sasquatch is evidently rare to the point of teetering on extinction and much more intelligent in the ways it has to be intelligent than we give it credit for. While man is supposedly intelligent, I am convinced that sasquatch is also highly intelligent, but in a way that differs from man. If I wanted to survive for my entire life in the woods, I would rather have a sasquatch as a survival partner and teacher than the most woods savvy human. Sasquatch, I am convinced, is not a dumb creature. Sasquatch might not use fire or even use any tools to any degree beyond any other known ape, but intelligence is relative. I'm personally convinced that the sasquatch brain is geared toward recording and anticipating the movement patterns of prey species such as elk and deer, and by proxy they are also very keen to knowing when and where humans will intrude in their home. They know the human calenders and they know the human trails and human habits of forest use to the extreme. You can use that knowledge in your field research I think by searching in areas far from human trails and by trying to think like a sasquatch that wants to avoid you at all cost. You must get off the road, trails and away from human traveled stream drainages and plop yourself in a sasquatch bedroom to increase your odds of having a sasquatch get irritated at your intrusion and have your own personal and convincing experience to erase personal skepticism. Though I think sasquatch are rare to the extreme, I know of a few places I am personally afraid to spend the night alone for fear of being crushed in the night by a nearby handy boulder picked up by hands of a huge creature that I can hardly fathom. I want to see one of them myself, but have been thoroughly run off by one of their threat vocalizations that pierced my core with it's strength. And those tracks, my gosh, lord protect the lone sasquatch researcher with the b*lls to do what has to be done to experience the creature for himself, up close and personal in the dark of night. Seriously, if any pure skeptic wants to have their mind changed, I can tell you where to go alone and spend a month camping by yourself to irritate a sasquatch to a degree that if it is still there you will find out about it. I've always said that one can not go out and find a sasquatch, but a sasquatch can find you if you push your luck enough in the right place by intruding on them. There are a few skeptical scientists who spout grand denials without any study into the subject or without even leaving their well worn desks that I would dearly love to tie to a tree in a few places I know. I think their minds might be changed after they cry for help in the night for a few nights. I myself am afraid to make even a squeak in those areas at night for fear of being found by the owners of the place. It is interesting that the places I fear to go alone at night are the same places the natives historically said "we don't go there because of the huge hairy manbeasts that dwell there, that is their side of the river". The bad thing is, it was a great place to hunt elk and was on supposedly public property, however the local sasquatch still claim it as their property and that is the way it should be. They seem to put up somewhat with we humans intruding on the edges of their bedrooms by day, but again I think it may be a fatal mistake to pitch your tent squarely in their bedroom alone for any extended period, especially now that good sasquatch bedrooms are getting rarer too. One old male sasquatch may tire of being pushed out to the point of violence if he has nowhere else to call home. They don't like change anyway, which is why new roads or big new roadsigns, buildings or RV's get visited with some violence toward inanimate objects at locations that the local sasquatch consider theirs or on their habitual travel routes. Sasquatch seem to be pretty patient with our intrusions for the most part, but that does not mean you can push your luck all the time. Though the best way to get your own personal experience with a sasquatch is not with a group of researchers, but rather completely alone in a completely scary place at night. I fear for that researcher, but when the authorities investigate why he never returned from the woods, at least that researcher will have contributed to the knowledge of the sasquatch in the reports made by those legal authorities investigating the death. Wonder if those plexyglass boxes that people use to get close to wild polar bears would stand up to the pommeling of a 1000 pound apeman. If it would, I wouldn't mind having one of those boxes dropped off by helicopter in a couple places I know where I could spend a month of nights locked inside at night with a plethora of night recording video equipment. That big old ugly plastic box with a single puny man inside would surely irritate the heck out of a sasquatch if it decorated his bedroom for any time. That sounds like a plan doesn't it. After personally finding 17 inch tracks and investigating 19 inch tracks that I'm certain were genuine, I have an appreciation (fear) of the woods in those places that I didn't have prior. That plexyglass box might help me do what has to be done alone. After study, I really think you increase your chances by being alone, rather than in a group of two or more. I'll not sit in the box without room to maneuver a high powered rifle, in case things get out of hand and the box doesn't seem to be holding up to the violence possible, so if all goes wrong with the plan, at least we would have some blood to study, hopefully not my blood.

Who wants to take turns in the night box? I'm sure the authorities we get permission from for the box placement will think we are complete idiots, but, oh well. Sounds fun to me, personal nightly incarceration in a sweat box by choice, with the latches on the inside. Hope sasquatch are not extinct yet, because the plan sounds silly otherwise. On the other hand, life is better if one gets silly sometimes. Maybe we will answer that question as to whether sasquatch is now extinct or not. Can't hurt to try I guess.

Keith Foster

[Guest]

Excellent piece Kfoster. I've appreciated your perspective, much of which I share, since first encountering your other observations a few years ago and always suggest that anyone wishing for a comprehensive description of the creature as a natural and intelligent being would be remiss if they didn't start with your observations and experiences.

As for details of morphology and hoaxing and foot details...considering how widely varied humans are, I suspect the one and only characteristic that stays consistent is that part we cant see but surely must be there, in my opinion; the cognitive ability. I don't think of it as an intelligent animal, nor a less than intelligent H. sapien, but agree it is using its considerable cognitive capacity to inform its situational awareness on a level that no animal does, or can, or has any need to, and similarly in a way that no mmodern human does while adapted to our hardwired instinctive social perceptions with their dependence on structures and technology. That in conjunction with our own human over-estimated strength in our senses and conviction that our intelligence gives us insight which make sense to us and therefore must be sensible to BR as well, which are not bad but are not as likely to be as honed as they would be if we lived in a wild-adapted lifestyle. Being congitively and physiologically different explains much to me. Expecting a creature that weighs 500 lbs and has long arms and powerful legs to stick to trails that are appealling to humans as we typically do, with our human biomechanical difficulties in bushwhacking uphill, explains some of the conundrum to me. I know that if I were as large, powerful and capable, and wanted to cover some ground to gain elevation, I sure wouldn't stick to trails, but just use my long arms to go right up and over to where the next nest of marmots or sheep or berries or fresh spring is waiting.

Because of that, the near impossibility of really getting close enough for our relatively weak senses to dect them dependably, I suggest that a whole lot of patience and the ability to observe a habitat and the megafauna that is in it without being detected will be key to understanding it fully enough to predict its behavior so that a fairly accurate prediction can be made as to where evidence will be found consistent with the predictions. I don't see why these creatures could be so smart and yet not smart to recognize that colorful tents or shiney objects or smelly plastics, or anything out of the ordinary would be a very good lure...including the plexiglass box idea...bears have brains the size of peach and are routinely lured in, but I haven't heard of anyone ever doing it with BF unless it was a fluke and probably misinterpreted or at least unintentional and certainly non-repeatable...

Then of course, there's always the unexpected logging truck.

I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing your good speed in creating your representation of BF. Wildlife artists bring out an understanding of a creature that even the best field biology seems to miss. Cheers.

[Guest Touchmymonkey]

Using Occam's Razor (generally paraphrased to say "The simplest solution is the most likely"), we may apply this deductive reasoning to problem solving if we give weight or probability to the alternatives, in terms of the complication of each alternative. And here, it appears to me, the Presumption of Regularity can be applied to that issue of probable weight or likelyhood. One way of doing something which is common, regular or industry standard, for example, is a simpler solution than an uncommon event that deviates from or contridicts industry standard or conventional practice. For the uncommon event, you must explain the conditions that caused the diviation from industry standard practice. You must add a "condition", which by Ockham's Razor, makes that event more complicated and less likely.

I wonder if Patterson was clever enough to know to deviate from standards in suit making, since that would be easier to spot, since people within the industry know about it. It stands to reason imo that a hoaxer would not want his suit to look like ones you see on tv and movies and therefore do something different to it and outside the norm.

[Bill]

touchmymonkey:

"I wonder if Patterson was clever enough to know to deviate from standards in suit making, since that would be easier to spot, since people within the industry know about it. It stands to reason imo that a hoaxer would not want his suit to look like ones you see on tv and movies and therefore do something different to it and outside the norm. "

Occasionally in the profession, we do something we know is deliberately unconventional, but that does require first a very solid understanding of the details of what is conventional. And that usually comes more from doing the work, over years, than just talking to people about it or looking at movies and stills from same. Given Roger has no documented experience making suits (trust me, if he were, others would have noticed. It's not something people can do secretly, given the workshop, materials, tools, and such needed to do the work), and the "Roger was an artist so. . ." doesn't cut it either from a reality standpoint (as much as skeptics love that agrument).

There is however an alternative that could be argued, that a true amateur, ignorant of professional techniques, does something very unconventional because he doesn't know the true professional way. But then you have to argue for "beginner's luck" achieving a result which has (if it's a suit) some remarkable sophistication, and somebody inside wearing it with a real strange body. Tough arguments to sell.

Bill

[Guest Touchmymonkey]

touchmymonkey:

"I wonder if Patterson was clever enough to know to deviate from standards in suit making, since that would be easier to spot, since people within the industry know about it. It stands to reason imo that a hoaxer would not want his suit to look like ones you see on tv and movies and therefore do something different to it and outside the norm. "

Occasionally in the profession, we do something we know is deliberately unconventional, but that does require first a very solid understanding of the details of what is conventional. And that usually comes more from doing the work, over years, than just talking to people about it or looking at movies and stills from same. Given Roger has no documented experience making suits (trust me, if he were, others would have noticed. It's not something people can do secretly, given the workshop, materials, tools, and such needed to do the work), and the "Roger was an artist so. . ." doesn't cut it either from a reality standpoint (as much as skeptics love that agrument).

There is however an alternative that could be argued, that a true amateur, ignorant of professional techniques, does something very unconventional because he doesn't know the true professional way. But then you have to argue for "beginner's luck" achieving a result which has (if it's a suit) some remarkable sophistication, and somebody inside wearing it with a real strange body. Tough arguments to sell.

Bill

I hear Roger was a saddle maker and rodeo. Works with hides, leather, and fur/hair maybe? Is this not accurate?

I would only have to argue for beginners luck as much as one could argue against it.

Any arguments you throw out someone will buy (not just you btw, I mean anyone including myself). MK Davis has his followers after all. Whether or not something sells is of no interest to me.

I appreciate the time you have spent sharing with us your thoughts on the Patterson film. Much needed and interesting. I will continue to explore your work.

[Bill]

Touchmymonkey:

"I hear Roger was a saddle maker and rodeo. Works with hides, leather, and fur/hair maybe? Is this not accurate?"

I have heard that as well (the saddlemaker part) and there seems to be a common assumption saddle or other leather crafts work is similar to suitmaking.

But saddle making and other heavy duty leatherwork usually shapes the leather by soaking to soften it and then pressing it to a form to dry in that pressed shape, which is never done with suits.

Leather craft, especially heavy duty leather work, joins pieces by rivits and occasionally very stiff and strong glue, and things sewn are more likely by stitching through punched holes (often with gromits to reinforce the punched hole) and the stitching is often 1/4", 12" or more apart. Needle and thread sewing is pretty rare in saddlry (maybe fine clothing accessory leather it is more common), and suits rely on far more fine needle and thread sewing with gromits reserved for sophisticated underlayer structures.

Suits use costume closures like zippers and velcro, not much use for either making saddles.

And the single biggest difference is suits, especially fur suits, require that sections of fur to be joined must consider not only a shape and how one section is identified to the piece it attaches to, but the fur piece must factor the lay (direction) of the fur into the cutting of the piece shape, so hair lays over seams and flows easily from one piece to another, a consideration virtually non-existent in saddlemaking. Suitmaking, especially with materials that don't stretch a lot (and 1960's furcloth did not), you must consider the mobility of the person wearing what you make, and sometimes design the looseness or tightness by factoring in a body posture change. I don't think this ever comes to mind in making equestrian leather work.

The fact is they are both specialized fabrication crafts, but their methodologies are far more different than alike, so I personally don't see that reported skill of Roger's to be any kind of indication he could build a suit better than an average person.

For all my years making suits, and being totally at home in a fabric shop browsing the aisles, every time I went into a Tandy Leather Craft store, I felt like I was in an alien world. I'd look at tools and wonder what they are, how they're used, and wonder about how things were braided, rivited and shaped, patterned, etc.

So I personally have never seen the connection between leathercraft (especially for heavy huty applications like the needs of the equestrian world), and what i used to do.

Obviously this is a personal perception moreso that a impartial fact, so I'll just say, that's how the issue looks to me.

Bill

Edited September 27, 2009 by Bill