Guest fenris Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I saw that too. Of course, shamans-in-training (especially on stilts) might account for some sightings in some areas but I think Rink's NEW "theory" was something of a hook to get us old timers interested in yet another MQ sort of show. I admit I was on the edge of my seat - until after the commercial. The Woman X as possible Almasty was really interesting and I hadn't even thought of that. The shaman theory was beneath the good doctor, as it pretty insults all of us a little bit. Garagntuan shamans accounbt for the mystery, are you *************** kidding me? I certainly hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The shaman theory was beneath the good doctor, as it pretty insults all of us a little bit. Garagntuan shamans accounbt for the mystery, are you *************** kidding me? I certainly hope not. I'm thinking specifically of incidents of 14-footers reported in one of Tom Steenburg's books. A shaman on stilts was a possible explanation, but just for a small area in Canada. I don't know what Dr. Rink has read on this, but maybe not much. We didn't see Dr. Cichon coming upside his head. The funding may be safe. I've met some really big Indians, but their bulk seemed to be concentrated around the waist, not the shoulders. I haven't heard them roar, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 hey everyone WOW that new sasquatch documentary was interesting unquie awesome the reactmentments of sightings were wonderful i give this new documentary A++++ ty bill g I agree, Bill, I thought that it was great! Luckily, I was able to DVR it, however, I'm losing my DVR tomorrow for a new Moxie, and I don't know how to try to transfer it someplace else Thankfully I was able to watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ShadowPrime Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am just past halfway - watching on my DVR - and a couple of observations so far (pretty superficial compared to some of the thoughts here!)... 1) LOVE the re-enactments. Have always enjoyed those, and with CGI getting better and better we are spared the lame "man in suit" re-enactments that were the staple of many earlier efforts. I do note that they seem to have opted for a more "menacing" look for BF than I would have gone for; I don't recall too many witnesses describing a snarling, angry expression, but....*S* 2) The special suggests that after the Patterson film, there was a great increase in the number of BF reports. Now, maybe it is just me, but it seemed like they were implying something fishy there... that is, the Patterson film planted the idea of BF in people's minds, so now they were seeing BF everywhere. Maybe so, but it occured to me you could also suggest that the PGF made it more acceptable for folks to come forward, and (maybe) expanded the number of BF-interested folks, so there were places to go with your reports. Not sure. Just saying, I thought that second potential explanation ought to have at least been suggested. 3) I also found the PGF skeptics a bit shallow. No offense. *S* I have read much better critiques here - the one "journalist" offered things like "the suit was either made of cowhide or was maybe a store bought costume" (well? which was it? isn't figuring out HOW Patterson managed it a key element of the story?), and they failed to mention that Patterson was where he was because there had been sightings in the area (which doesnt mean the PGF wasn't hoaxed, granted). The one scientist basically just dug in and said "it just looks like a man in a suit to me", end of story, no discussion of 1960s monster suits, Patterson's resources or lack thereof. I understand that PGF analysis has arguably been done to death, and they didn't want to FOCUS on the film, but...just found that segment disappointing, especially the superficial arguments made by the critics. 4) The BF artwork was excellent. *S* SO...enjoying it thus far. Will check back when I get to finish it... Shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I didn't hear anything about Roger's "prototype" being an illustration of Albert Ostman's story for the book. He drew the "Old Man", too, so why not a male "costume"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 11, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Well if that picture of "The Old Man" is a true picture of the morphology of the top of Bigfoot skull, I'd have to say that the Shaman's would have to be subject to "foreshortening by skillet" rather than "lengthening by rack" to fit the bill. Further the old "head without a neck" thingy would have the Shaman theory challenged a bit as well.....but then again it's quite amazing what turtleneck fashion can do for witness testimony. Edited February 11, 2011 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Well if that picture of "The Old Man" is a true picture of the morphology of the top of Bigfoot skull, I'd have to say that the Shaman's would have to be subject to "foreshortening by skillet" rather than "lengthening by rack" to fit the bill. Further the old "head without a neck" thingy would have the Shaman theory challenged a bit as well.....but then again it's quite amazing what turtleneck fashion can do for witness testimony. Don't forget cradle boards, congenital deformity and neck braces. Edited February 11, 2011 by LAL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I am just past halfway - watching on my DVR - and a couple of observations so far (pretty superficial compared to some of the thoughts here!)... 1) LOVE the re-enactments. Have always enjoyed those, and with CGI getting better and better we are spared the lame "man in suit" re-enactments that were the staple of many earlier efforts. I do note that they seem to have opted for a more "menacing" look for BF than I would have gone for; I don't recall too many witnesses describing a snarling, angry expression, but....*S* 2) The special suggests that after the Patterson film, there was a great increase in the number of BF reports. Now, maybe it is just me, but it seemed like they were implying something fishy there... that is, the Patterson film planted the idea of BF in people's minds, so now they were seeing BF everywhere. Maybe so, but it occured to me you could also suggest that the PGF made it more acceptable for folks to come forward, and (maybe) expanded the number of BF-interested folks, so there were places to go with your reports. Not sure. Just saying, I thought that second potential explanation ought to have at least been suggested. 3) I also found the PGF skeptics a bit shallow. No offense. *S* I have read much better critiques here - the one "journalist" offered things like "the suit was either made of cowhide or was maybe a store bought costume" (well? which was it? isn't figuring out HOW Patterson managed it a key element of the story?), and they failed to mention that Patterson was where he was because there had been sightings in the area (which doesnt mean the PGF wasn't hoaxed, granted). The one scientist basically just dug in and said "it just looks like a man in a suit to me", end of story, no discussion of 1960s monster suits, Patterson's resources or lack thereof. I understand that PGF analysis has arguably been done to death, and they didn't want to FOCUS on the film, but...just found that segment disappointing, especially the superficial arguments made by the critics. 4) The BF artwork was excellent. *S* SO...enjoying it thus far. Will check back when I get to finish it... Shadow The program is being re-aired Saturday, Feb.12 at 8 pm central time on the History Channel. Monster Quest will have a program on about the Curse of the Monkey Man at 10pm central also on the History channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quazimoto Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I just got a chance to watch the special last night (recorded it on DVD because I've been hella busy the past few weeks). Personally, I thought it was a top-notch program. The Shaman theory was simply ludacris as an explaination of all Bigfoot sightings, but could actually explain SOME sightings. IMO, it kind of hurt the program's credibility placing said theory towards the end. Might have been better palced in the middle. I noticed a lot of people on this forum saying that the experts basically dismissed the possibility of Sasquatch existing outside of the Pacific NorthWest. I didn't really get that impression. My understanding was that they (meaning the panel members) were saying that if Bigfoot existed, the Pacific NorthWest is the most likely area for it to survive and thrive and not that there was no possibility that it does/could exist elsewhere in North America. All in all, I really enjoyed the program and thought it brought about a couple new theories (despite the ridiculous Shaman one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I didn't really get that impression either Quazimoto. It's true that other parts of the country have wild chimps and apes. I feel that their illustration about the increase in sightings since the PGF did not accounts for the population explosion and the rate in which we have sprawled in to their back yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I didn't really get that impression either Quazimoto. It's true that other parts of the country have wild chimps and apes. I feel that their illustration about the increase in sightings since the PGF did not accounts for the population explosion and the rate in which we have sprawled in to their back yards. I think people are more willing to report now and have places where they can do it without getting laughed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Perez Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide. Executive producer: Alan Handel; producer/writer/director: Shaun Trevisick; Dangerous Film Ltd. & Handel Productions, Inc. for the History channel, (premiere) February 2, 2011. After I watched the premiere of this two hour show, I got up from my sofa thinking serious television documentaries are a thing of the past. We are told by the narrator we were supposed to see “shocking new evidence,†which turned out to be just a carrot dangled in front of your eyes to keep you tuned in. There was no “new evidence.†This “show†was poorly researched and packaged as entertainment with the hopes of attracting as many eyeballs as possible. TV ratings and revenue was the game and in my view Dr. Anna Nekaris was not there for substance of thought - but as eye candy. The Ruby Creek incident from 1941 was dramatized in this program and the husband to Jeannie Chapman is now “Jack†instead of George. It isn’t hard to flip through a few Bigfoot books and find that information so that is why I will stick with my assessment of poorly researched. Fact are facts. It would appear that some of the footage used was licensed from a previous television program of the same genre, Monster Quest. That said, instead of dramatizing the Ruby Creek incident, the producers should have licensed a factual, non-dramatic, real documentary clip of John Green, who investigated the matter, and Esse Tyfting, who was there to see the Bigfoot tracks in the ground. It is fascinating and can be seen on YouTube. Instead of sticking with the Bigfoot topic in North America, the producers of this show saw fit to go globetrotting and discuss the Yeti, the Yeren, the Orang Pendek, etc. Since Bigfoot is still a mystery, that should be reason enough to stay on American soil. Mike McLeod, the author of Anatomy Of A Beast, went on camera talking about Roger Patterson, making reference to him as unemployed and broke. In the promotional to his book Chris Beard states: “Here, Michael McLeod approaches the ‘Bigfoot phenomenon’ in the same way that a detective would follow leads at a crime scene.†So why would a “broke†Roger Patterson from Yakima, Washington drive all the way to northern California to get the “money shot†in reference to the P-G film? And... if the film were fake, as McLeod implies, why haven’t others followed suit to get their own “money shot?†Come on! McLeod does not strike me as a detective, but something very far from it. Perhaps my take on Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide is overbearing and too critical, so I went online to see what others wrote. Alton Higgins, a well respected Bigfooter from Oklahoma would write, “I must say that I was unimpressed. Very little new ground was covered. I have to say that I got the impression that the documentary was just too hurried in its production.†However, Doug Hajicek, the producer and creative force behind Monster Quest, gave the show “...a big thumbs up.†Loren Coleman’s www.cryptomundo fans were not as sympathetic as Hajicek, as two pounced immediately. Wrote twigsin, “...it didn’t seem to have anything new to offer...waste of time.†And ozarkmom said, “the show was basically a waste of 2 hours.†The high point of the absolute ludicrous came when they suggested Bigfoot might be a Native American Shaman! Of the alleged Bigfoot videos reviewed, it was quite interesting as there was not a single mention of the “Redwoods footage,†shot in northern California in August 1995, something that Jeff Meldrum personally investigated. Of the ideas entertained, one was that Bigfoot & company might be a living Neanderthal, yet there was no mention of the Minnesota Iceman and that it might have been a recently killed Neanderthal. Of the idea of a nocturnal Bigfoot, the narrator is quick to say, “...apes don’t have night vision.†Since when is Bigfoot just an ape? Perhaps the producers were over influenced by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a heavy proponent that Bigfoot is a North American ape. Toward the ending of this show, Meldrum does concede to the idea that “others†(he doesn’t mention names) think Bigfoot might be “...a type of person...†then went on to say, and correctly so, that if this is so we would have to redefine what “human†means. Ian Redmond is shown on camera in the forest with stick structures. They were actually small trees busted and coming together to form a teepee formation and he equated that to “a powerful male is here,†which might be good reasoning, as it takes quite a bit of force to bust trees in this fashion. And these tree and stick formations have been observed and documented in many places. On the famous P-G film, they simply called it the “Patterson film,†but Anna Nekaris said, “...it looks pretty natural†and Ian Redmond, O.B.E., stated it looked “very relaxed†and possessed a “very flowing gait.†Redmond is a field biologist who has studied gorillas extensively. Dr. Bill Sellers wasn’t easily sold by the P-G film, stating “...it’s all about trust.†But as the late Rene´ Dahinden said, we knew Roger Patterson had a blemished past, but there has to come a point when you have to separate the film from the photographer, or words to that affect. The poorly researched program showed tons of Bigfoot sightings on a North American map and I think it was another case of eye candy rather than having any substance behind it. Who plotted the dots on the map? Etc.? Ed Stockly for the Los Angeles, Times, put it well: “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide rarely rises above the typical crypto-zoology documentary. A big problem is the overblown script. While the scientists are careful and precise in their language and claims, the narration goes far beyond the scope of the science and reality. When it comes to Bigfoot, the only thing definitive in the documentary is that nothing is definitive. The five scientists cannot reach a consensus.†“So, if you're keeping score,†Mr. Stockly writes, “mark this battle between science and the Bigfoot mythology as a draw. The only victory here is one for exploiting the public's interest in this mythical creature.†On the upside, Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide does drive home the point planet Earth may hold a multitude of unknown primates lurking in the vastness of the world’s forested regions. (As noted in the Bigfoot Times (www.bigfoottimes.net), February 2011). Edited February 27, 2011 by FuriousGeorge No name calling here, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 I don't disagree. Nothing groundbreaking but.... Anytime you can bring this subject to nationwide/worldwide attention in a positive manner is okay with me. Dr. Nekaris has discovered six different types of primates and now she is at least interested in investigating the Yeti. Instead of just saying "meh, yeah sure, whatever". That's aces in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 27, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted February 27, 2011 Thsi bad Boy has a Month of comments already.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 There were a couple of topics within this forum discussing Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide so I merged them into one concise thread discussing the same subject. The merge begins with post #102 that was made by Daniel Perez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts