Bigfoot Media Today.....

[norseman]

I think it's hard, much harder than in Patterson's day, you can just throw up a video on youtube or vimeo and stay fairly anonymous..........

 

You would think people would want to come out and tell their story but maybe not, maybe because of fear of ridicule they choose to stay hidden, and only share what they video'd.

 

Dunno.

[17x7]

For me, it's the "look" when I see it.  The PGF "looks" right.  You have some creature moving in the film.  You see it move, walk, turn, and squint as it looks at them.  It movies strangely, but moves in ways that seem normal.  For example, when it turns its head, the head seems too low on the shoulders, but the shoulders turn to compensate.  The swing of the arms changes as does the gate because the pelvis shifts a little.  It all flows so easily that the creature looks real.  You watch the clip and are struck by the thought, "If Bigfoot is real, that's how it looks."  The opposite of a Godzilla clip.  Nothing about Godzilla even seems as if it could be real.  How the film starts also makes a big difference to me.  In the PGF, the creature is already in view when the camera starts instead of convieniently walking out from behind a tree that the photographer just 'happened' to be filming for the last 30 seconds.  So many of the modern clips just don't look like something real. 

 

Standing's photos are incredibly clear and detailed, but there is no movement.  I know there is a blink in one, but the heads don't turn or change expression.  You never see a whole creature.  Only a small portion.  They just don't look or act like real living creatures.  If, as he says, he is sneaking up on these things and this is the photo of the sentry you should get a HUGE reaction when it realizes it's being seen.  That doesn't seem to happen in those photos.  They look like carefully posed shots of a stage prop.

I also automatically reject any photo that starts with the phrase, "I was looking through some old photos and saw a BF standing there that I never noticed at the time."  Instant BS call.  I live mostly in Africa and get to take photos of safari animals from time to time.  You never see an animal in a picture that you didn't see in person.  It's always the other way around.  I can see a leopard in a tree 500 yards away.  Snap a photo of it and you can't find that same leopard in the shot.  If bigfoot was standing in front of you, you'd see it with your eyes.  You may not be able to capture a good photo of it, but you'd see it.  It just doesn't happen the other way around.

That's my .02.  It's not scientific or technical.  It's just how I look at it.

 

17x7

[norseman]

The people who are seeing things in pictures after the fact are copying the UFO and Ghost phenomena I think..........lots and lots of photos like that.

 

I've done it as well, Ohhhhhh that looks like a Squatch! But it's just a stump with the light just right or whatever.

[Guest]

Even more important to consider is the knowlege and experience of the person viewing the footage, or any other piece of evidence.

As examples, how do you authenticate an autograph, a painting, or an antique as being the real thing? You go to an expert and get their opinion.

The average Joe is not going to be able to tell a real Rembrandt from a forgery, in the same way, if someone says (just as an example) "Dude, the Patterson footage looks totally like a guy in a monkey suit", I'm going to take their opinion with a grain of salt unless they have some background in anatomy or costume making. Of course even experts disagree about things and can get things wrong, so opinions are always going to be somewhat subjective.

[the parkie]

Surely it is considered in the same way as any proffered evidence or testimony -

1. Is the person(s) offering the evidence / testimony reputable to you?

2. Does it look or sound feasible to you?

If yes to both then forward to discussion and consideration with others, hopefully including those you consider to possess technical experience or knowledge.

Edited February 7, 2014 by the parkie

[Guest]

What clear images screams "hoax"?

 

In my mind the Patterson-Gimlin film screams 'hoax'*, not so much the quality of it but the whole story behind it.  So we have someone (Patterson) that has been a known con man with a bias towards Bigfoot goes out to film a documentary on Bigfoot and films an actual Bigfoot on the very first day?  Either he got really lucky or he tried to pull one over on everyone.  I lean more towards the latter, but that opens up a bunch of legitimate questions that so far have gone unanswered, and because of this it's up in the air on whether or not it was a hoax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{*Okay, so maybe questionable rather than hoax, persay.}

Edited February 7, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Drew]

I offer the same question back to you Norseman.

Why do you think the Marx footage is faked?

 

Has anyone admitted to hoaxing that?  

 

[norseman]

Drew,

 

For one I think we can all agree that it's not the same caliber of film as the PGF or others. I obviously can see that it's not a bear or a tree stump, and that it's a furry biped but beyond that, there isn't much detail.

 

For two?

 

I've read Peter Byrne's account:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hoaxes/marx_footage.htm

 

I would consider this the proper way to go about vetting a film. And Marx's actions seem suspect as well.

 

Lastly, as this is my neck of the woods? There is a gent that not only claims that Marx was a fraud, but that the Bossburg tracks are a fraud as well, and claims he has the feet. I need to investigate further, when I have time.

Edited February 7, 2014 by norseman

[Ike]

In my mind the Patterson-Gimlin film screams 'hoax'*, not so much the quality of it but the whole story behind it.  So we have someone (Patterson) that has been a known con man with a bias towards Bigfoot goes out to film a documentary on Bigfoot and films an actual Bigfoot on the very first day?  Either he got really lucky or he tried to pull one over on everyone.  I lean more towards the latter, but that opens up a bunch of legitimate questions that so far have gone unanswered, and because of this it's up in the air on whether or not it was a hoax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{*Okay, so maybe questionable rather than hoax, persay.}

I wouldn't be so hasty there...IIRC he didn't film one "on the very first day" nor for that matter, was it his first excursion. Drop that nugget out in the PGF section and I'm sure somebody there will set you straight  

 

So fair enough, you think it impossible, nay convenient, that a "monster hunter" *** amateur documentary maker could be so lucky as to film one of these creatures when he is deliberately going out to find one. I can understand being troubled by too many coincidences.

 

Should we presume that you believe a rank amateur, daydreaming, out of work rodeo rider, jack of all trades, deadbeat, local bum driving his buddies 10 hours one way (why not closer to home?) hauling a horse trailer, had the talent to pull off a hoax of this caliber and duration which surpasses anything professional costumers in Hollywood could, or can, create on his first attempt? In one film take that couldn't be checked until developed I might add.

 

I'll grant you, some of the background stuff has a shady feel to it. I'm not saying what is in the PGF "is" or "isn't," but I've known folks like Patterson in my life, and it strains my credulity that he could hoax this, as much as the possibility an 8' tall ape man could exist does others. This is one of the main reasons I am still on the fence about the whole subject.

[Guest]

There are instances of amateur monster hunters going years, sometimes their entire lives, without filming anything like a Bigfoot. Most of these people are, to the best of my knowledge, honest. Am I to believe Roger Patterson, a known con man, really got that lucky when others didn't? Maybe he really got footage of an actual Bigfoot but it really is too big of a coincidence for my liking, so I need more evidence to accept his claims.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Leftfoot

[norseman]

So for you Ike, the quality of the film vindicates the person behind the camera. You can be shady, if you take really really good footage?

 

I think these thus far are about the only two tools used to vet a Squatch film by most people. 

 

Does the film look good?

 

Is the guy holding the camera a stand up guy?

 

I think it would be great if we could thoroughly vet a film site. Like Byrne did with the Marx film.

There are instances of amateur monster hunters going years, sometimes their entire lives, without filming anything like a Bigfoot. Most of these people are, to the best of my knowledge, honest. Am I to believe Robert Patterson, a known con man, really got that lucky when others didn't? Maybe he really got footage of an actual Bigfoot but it really is too big of a coincidence for my liking, so I need more evidence to accept his claims.

 

His name was Roger btw.

 

And what I like about the PGF versus anything you pull off the internet now is that we know where the film site is. And people made comparisons.....

 

 

We still fight about it, who was using what camera lens, etc, etc, etc........

 

But we can see the sticks and rocks lining up fairly well in the fore ground, and in my mind its a roughly fair comparison.

 

Most..............as in 99 percent of these films we never get this far, we can never go out to the film site and measure other flora and strata in the film and do a comparison like this.

 

Everyone by now should have access to a GPS unit or phone app that gives long/lat values. Putting that in the end of the film would go along way towards the vetting process.

[Guest]

Thanks for the correction on the name Norseman, corrected for accuracy.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Guest DWA]

I have one criterion that determines second-look-or-not:  does the figure appear to have human proportions and movement?  If so, next!

 

There are a number of markers that I consider indicative of a hoax other than that.  I consider most people to get this wrong.

 

Ones that I think could-be:

 

1. PGF (probable; this is just about the only piece of sasquatch evidence that can stand by itself)
2. Peguis, Manitoba, 2007 (backstory indexes perfectly to the video; a good hoax marker is no or minimal backstory)
3. Paul Freeman (didn't think much of this at first but recent review of film and related track analysis is changing my mind)
4. ID students May(?) 2012 (tracks found that looked interesting, video not clear enough to ID or to rule out)

I did find a recent list of hoax-video markers that ring reasonably true to me.  Ctrl-V disease on this computer at the moment nixes cut/paste; I might put them up later.  But my first line is my ultimate; reports uniformly describe proportions and behavior that said not-human to the observer.

 

I do believe that most people would let a potentially legitimate video slide by them due to inadequate exposure to animals and the outdoors coupled with an improper understanding of hoax markers.  (My favorite examples:  dismissal of PG based on everything but what is in the film; frequent citing of a "hoax marker" in the Peguis video that is actually an authenticity marker.)

Edited February 7, 2014 by DWA

[Ike]

There are instances of amateur monster hunters going years, sometimes their entire lives, without filming anything like a Bigfoot. Most of these people are, to the best of my knowledge, honest. Am I to believe Roger Patterson, a known con man, really got that lucky when others didn't? Maybe he really got footage of an actual Bigfoot but it really is too big of a coincidence for my liking, so I need more evidence to accept his claims.

 

I can accept and understand this. I wrestle with it myself sometimes. I see a lot of people like to use that term "con man" in regards to Patterson, and am somewhat uncomfortable with it based on what little I know. While I agree that from a technical standpoint, it is a correct statement, however I think it usage in this case tends to overblow the severity of the situation. In no way should it be construed that I am an apologist for Patterson's shady activities nor do I condone them; but failing to return a camera on time, or getting overwhelmed and dropping the ball on getting out a paid for newsletter hardly rises to the level of "con man" as perceived in most peoples consciousness. How many people get months behind on their mortgage payment, or bounce a check (regardless of reason)? How many people have failed to return library books, tool or video rentals on time? How many people have started a home business, only to find out that they are in way over their heads on orders and give up and hide from their obligations? How many people have gotten behind on bills and started dodging creditors? How many people have lied to insurance companies for a better rate, or played fast and free with tax laws?

 

Again, I don't endorse any of these activities, and every one of those examples is indeed something that is legally actionable. On the other hand, I don't think it always raises those people in those circumstances to the level of "con men," "thieves," "frauds," "bunko artists" and so forth. I think those sort of terms, while technically true, are best reserved for professionals who deliberately start out with the intent to steal or cheat their way through situations. I don't think Patterson was one of those types. I think he was inherently a decent guy, albeit one with a looser moral compass than many, who made some poor decisions in life.

 

But this thread isn't about Patterson or the PGF, so I'll try to recalibrate...

 

So for you Ike, the quality of the film vindicates the person behind the camera. You can be shady, if you take really really good footage?

 

I think these thus far are about the only two tools used to vet a Squatch film by most people. 

 

Does the film look good?

 

Is the guy holding the camera a stand up guy?

 

I think it would be great if we could thoroughly vet a film site. Like Byrne did with the Marx film.

 

 

And what I like about the PGF versus anything you pull off the internet now is that we know where the film site is. And people made comparisons.....

 

 

 

Most..............as in 99 percent of these films we never get this far, we can never go out to the film site and measure other flora and strata in the film and do a comparison like this.

 

Everyone by now should have access to a GPS unit or phone app that gives long/lat values. Putting that in the end of the film would go along way towards the vetting process.

 

Norse, to a certain extent, yes although I wouldn't use the term "vindicate." Character is certainly a consideration, but not my first. Arguably, the most evil monster mankind ever produced was Adolph Hitler, and even he liked dogs, children, and John Wayne movies. Being of suspect character does not automatically mean that everything they do in life is tainted. It can, and should, cause one to scrutinize the situation even harder, but is not an automatic disqualifier.

 

No, I think the film itself has to be the starting point. After all, when word of new footage comes out, do you want to look at the camera mans police record, credit score, and school transcripts first...or the film they shot? If the evidence on the surface doesn't pass the sniff test, I don't really bother with a further investigation. Good examples of this are the Toejam material, the fuzzy crap MK Davis peddles from that farm down in Texas(?), Matilda, the hand fishing fuzzy thing from New York last year, et al.

 

Stage two for me is to really study the footage and see what subconscious details I pick up to make me delve a little further. Does it look more like human in suit, or naturalistic/animalistic. Why was the film shot? How is the camera man behaving? Then, I move to stage three, where I want to know where this is and if someone can study the terrain with boots on the ground. I'm not going personally to the site unless it is local to me, but I'm sure someone, somewhere out there would be willing to investigate. A lot of times it gets stalled out for me at this point by the secret squirrel crowd who don't want to reveal the location. At that point, for me anyway, it goes on the crap pile. That tells me you've got something to hide. It may be totally for good reasons, but generally, it seems to me to be a lame excuse. Compare that to Patterson who didn't do that. He couldn't wait to tell everyone what he saw, where he saw it, and invite others to go see themselves. Strikes me as someone who wasn't trying to hide anything.

 

After that, the next stage is I want to know about who filmed it. What are the circumstances, what is their character like, etc. At this level, it could all crash and burn like the Hindenburg, but I don't see any sense in delving this far until the preceding steps are taken. In general though, I agree with the rest of your points on this.

[Guest Urkelbot]

 

Should we presume that you believe a rank amateur, daydreaming, out of work rodeo rider, jack of all trades, deadbeat, local bum driving his buddies 10 hours one way (why not closer to home?) hauling a horse trailer, had the talent to pull off a hoax of this caliber and duration which surpasses anything professional costumers in Hollywood could, or can, create on his first attempt? In one film take that couldn't be checked until developed I might add.

 

I'll grant you, some of the background stuff has a shady feel to it. I'm not saying what is in the PGF "is" or "isn't," but I've known folks like Patterson in my life, and it strains my credulity that he could hoax this, as much as the possibility an 8' tall ape man could exist does others. This is one of the main reasons I am still on the fence about the whole subject.

Why is it so hard to imagine Patterson and Gimlin had someone else involved in the hoax. I see this all the time how could "stupid ole Patterson who could barely tie his shoe" pull off the hoax. Even the pgf geeks in the pgf forums section, where this conversation belongs, try to use it.

If the pgf was a hoax I think most would agree Patterson must have had some help.