Jump to content
Arvedis

Honey Island Swamp Monster 8mm

Recommended Posts

Arvedis

Didn't see this come up in search results so taking a chance this is not old news to this board.  This is a little known film, shot in 8mm by a local resident near Honey Island swamp in Louisiana sometime in the late 1970s.  This film has been erroneously assigned a film date of 1963 by internet pundits who don't know the full story.  It was definitely not shot in 1963 but exact date is unknown, sometime 1978-1979.  The filmmaker's daughter recovered it, transferred it to video and has made a documentary and other promotional stuff around it. She also added the soundtrack since of course otherwise the original film had none.

 

I have several problems with the film but it is kinda, sorta interesting.  It seems like nothing is happening, just a routine wildlife cruise on a swamp boat and then cuts to a really obscure sighting around 1:45.  From there it jumps around a bit and these could be edits to the film.  The film runs out not long afterwards.  You don't get a very good look at the creature but clearly, something is there.

 

If it is not edits, it could be unintentional starts and stops.  I have used 8mm cameras and it is very easy for your finger to slip.  It really is very easy to do accidental quick cuts as the filmmaker tries to stabilize the camera.  That is a very plausible scenario but the problem is the guy left no known notes or anything about it.

 

I have more issues with this.  First is the guy who took the film was not a hoaxer personality.  He was no nonsense type hunter guy who witnessed the creature once and then like many people, spent a lifetime in pursuit, never to see it again... until his old age when he shot that film.  Then he passed away not long afterwards.  The question is, if he suddenly decided to make a hoax, why would it be so obscure AND at the tail end of the roll of film?  Would it make sense to plan it that way or is the whole thing a series of edits to lead us into thinking it is an ordinary day and then wow, here is this thing close enough to the coastline where he could get a shot of it before it slips deep into the swamp?

 

Wouldn't a hoaxer make it more obvious?  He never released the film to anyone.  It sat in storage until his granddaughter got hold of it and is now using it to try and promote her own swamp monster research.  Her work is pretty awful and I would not put it past her to have edited the film herself, thus, erasing all credibility.  However, she stands by it as untouched and authentic.

 

I'm not so sure and like everything else with the creature, is inconclusive.

 

Thoughts are welcome

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Haven't seen that one yet..  Pretty interesting.  Looks like a similar build to Patty.  Also, seems to be quite the fluid movement.  Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Moderator

Nice find, but sadly inconclusive though. Doubt that any type of enhancement will provide any new detail on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

It was studied and concluded that is was a human in a ghillie suit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

It was studied and concluded that is was a human in a ghillie suit. 

 

who studied it? I would agree, that's not a bad analysis and those jump cuts bother me too.  But I'd like to see some kind of confirmation since the man is deceased and can't defend himself.  He really seemed like the last kind of person to do a hoax.  For what gain?  He never did anything with it and perhaps most telling of his character, he was more concerned with how his community perceived him since not everyone in that swamp culture believes in the beast. Kind of a taboo thing to talk about in that region.

 

2nskfp.jpg

Edited by Arvedis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

Not much there. Sound track is bad. She should have used parts of the sound track of 'Deliverance" without that purdy mouth line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Fact or Faked paranormal files recreated it is one source 

Perhaps he didn't know what or should I say who he was filming. 

My understanding is he never told his family about the film. I saw his daughter and son in law discussing it on 

Swamp People. 

 

His plaster casts not very convincing either. At least the ones I have seen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
40 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Fact or Faked paranormal files recreated it is one source 

Perhaps he didn't know what or should I say who he was filming. 

My understanding is he never told his family about the film. I saw his daughter and son in law discussing it on 

Swamp People. 

 

His plaster casts not very convincing either. At least the ones I have seen 

 

I think I saw that on YouTube and it is a good analysis.  I must have missed the mention of a ghillie suit though it certainly is a plausible theory.

 

There is a lot more to this that we do not know. I wish I could have interviewed Harlan Ford myself since what I really want to know is why was he randomly filming nothing and then there is a jump to inside the swamp with the bipedal walker barely visible?  If we didn't know what to look for then it would have been missed by a casual observer.

 

I asked his granddaughter and she shut me down because I was asking too many questions.  I wanted to rule out the possibility she may have edited the film and I never got a straight answer. One theory I am kicking around is it is separate films edited together to try and form continuity. One was elderly Ford enjoying nature and randomly filming nothing and  I am thinking the jumpy sequence was another time altogether with him on on expedition to track the creature and that is all he managed to get. Same camera, same type of film, same swamp can easily be stitched together to look the same.

 

I also think he was reluctant to make his film known because he didn't want to be labeled a loon in that swamp community he lived in. That and because it is inconclusive and he made some mistakes like slipping off the camera trigger making it look even more jumpy because he couldn't steady the camera in those seconds he needed to. Then the face palm of running out of film when he really needed not to. I really don't think anyone would film a hoax with seconds left on a roll of film. 

 

As for the casts, the swamp is mostly mud and the thing is 3 toed, which is the cryptid variety in the southern U.S.  I am no expert with casts but i don't hold that against him for not getting picture perfect examples.

Edited by Arvedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whistler

Movement looks smooth & butt looks big. All jokes aside- he’s pretty high up in the tree filming, and the thing still looks pretty massive in 8mm.. It’s a very interesting clip. Thanks for sharing :)

 

Cheers!

Edited by Whistler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Gator track:

1068897728_AlligatorTrack.thumb.jpg.6d53dffbbc8e06c1bbf46a802e0309b4.jpg

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Squatchy, that Halloween prop glued to a shoe is an embarrassment to Bigfootery. I would feel terribly embarrassed to claim someone was hoaxing using that device. For starters, those are fingers, not toes. Also, the fake hand meant to be a fake foot is attached backwards it looks like . So what sort of impression would that leave in the surface? The creature of that location is 3 toed and that device has 4 fingers. If you don't think people can tell the difference between a Halloween prop pressed into the mud and a 3 toed beast then all hope is lost.

 

And...I found that same page when researching this case. Guess who came up with that prop? MK Davis and some guy. They went to that Louisiana swamp to research, found nothing and no one had anything concrete to tell them. Where they came up with that stupid fake thing is unknown but really, it's safe to eliminate that prop as evidence that Ford was hoaxing.

 

 

 

Edited by Arvedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
8 hours ago, Arvedis said:

Squatchy, that Halloween prop glued to a shoe is an embarrassment to Bigfootery. I would feel terribly embarrassed to claim someone was hoaxing using that device. For starters, those are fingers, not toes. Also, the fake hand meant to be a fake foot is attached backwards it looks like . So what sort of impression would that leave in the surface? The creature of that location is 3 toed and that device has 4 fingers. If you don't think people can tell the difference between a Halloween prop pressed into the mud and a 3 toed beast then all hope is lost.

 

And...I found that same page when researching this case. Guess who came up with that prop? MK Davis and some guy. They went to that Louisiana swamp to research, found nothing and no one had anything concrete to tell them. Where they came up with that stupid fake thing is unknown but really, it's safe to eliminate that prop as evidence that Ford was hoaxing.

 

 

 

 

Why do you specifically call it a Halloween prop? Can you match it to a particular Halloween costume of the time?

 

Why is it, in your words, "glued to a shoe" when it is clearly a latex molded  to a shoe?

 

For starters, those fingers -- inversely -- have left you with the impression that they are are toes.

 

Have you ever worked with castings and/or negatives? I'm certain you have not.

 

[Hint] the pinky finger molded to the bottom of the shoe would have bent upwards -- it's right on the arch --  and widened the print, still leaving a 3 toed impression.

 

Do us both a favour and research the origins of the shoe, unless you want me to bleeve Harlan Ford filmed the only really real 3 toed BigFooT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
14 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Why do you specifically call it a Halloween prop? Can you match it to a specific Halloween costume of the time?

 

Why is it, in your words, "glued to a shoe" when it is clearly a latex cast/mold attached to a shoe?

 

For starters, those fingers -- inversely -- have left you with the impression that they are are toes.

 

Have you ever worked with castings and/or negatives? I'm certain you have not.

 

[Hint] the pinky finger molded to the bottom of the shoe would have bent upwards -- it's right on the arch --  and widened the print, still leaving a 3 toed impression.

 

Do us both a favour and research the origins of the shoe, unless you want me to bleeve Harlan Ford filmed the only really real 3 toed BigFooT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No emoji necessary.  I just yawned.  Anyway, this thread is about the film.  If you are truly invested in spending precious moments of your life investigating a irrelevant component of whatever it is the prop is intended to do, have at it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Good luck with that ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×