Bigfoot Depictions Vs. Reality

[Carnivore]

Over the years I've seen many different illustrations/digital re-creations of bigfoots that are generally based on witness reports. However, something I've always wondered is how accurate those depictions are in regards to what they actually may look like. Particularly, I've wondered about the face being that some depictions will show something that is more humanlike, while others are a more apelike appearance. I was wondering if the people on here who have had their own sightings (and saw the face well enough) have any images in mind that they could share where the illustration is an exact match or very close to what they saw. 

[hiflier]

In John Green's database there are variables that cover different characteristics. I know you are requesting any particulars from folks here who are knowers but thought I'd help you get the ball rolling  The variables in the database include Human-like nose/ape-like nose, small nose/large flat nose. Human-like face/ape-like face and other distinguishing features such as eye shape, teeth, hair on the face, ears that show and facial skin color. These are but a few of the descriptive terms in the database that witnesses have reported. There's much, much more. I know because from 2013-2016 I worked on the database revising it. The revision involved breaking out many of the original variables into separate fields in order to do more specific searches when sorting for certain data groups. I also worked on getting it into chronological order which was my main goal..

 

And yes, it took three years on and off (mostly on) to do the work. I had emailed the late John Green in 2014 (I think) and told him what I was doing and he wrote back that he was delighted that someone had finally taken an interest in it after 12 years laying idle. In the summer of 2015 I wrote to him again and asked if he would sign an original copy of his 1978 Hancock House "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" which he graciously agreed to do. He was 86 at the time. I sent him the copy along with $20 to pay for its return mailing and he sent the book back signed with a $10 bill in change. A year and a half later, in May of 2016, he passed away. He was quite a guy.

Edited August 9, 2019 by hiflier

[Carnivore]

Thanks for the reply Hiflier. It's too bad that John Green is no longer around as he was definitely a valuable contributor to the bigfoot subject. I find the aspect of appearance to be interesting since it leads to other discussions about the various "types" of bigfoot that inhabit different areas of North America and the world. I came across this website (link below) but I was not able to edit it into my original post. It goes through the supposed bigfoot types and uses sketches and digital renderings to demonstrate the various facial and overall physical appearances. It's when I see stuff like those images that I wonder how accurate they are in comparison to what these beings actually look like. 

 

Link: http://www.bigfoot411.com/bigfoot-types.html

[NatFoot]

I started a very similar thread within the past year with photos of witness drawings.

 

See if you can find that, it might help.

[hiflier]

36 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

It's too bad that John Green is no longer around as he was definitely a valuable contributor to the bigfoot subject.

 

Agreed.

 

36 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

It's when I see stuff like those images that I wonder how accurate they are in comparison to what these beings actually look like.

 

I see your point. And thank you for the interesting link. A lot of work certainly went into it. AND it lends food for thought. Sybilla Irwin has done a lot in the way of drawings in which she worked directly with witnesses: http://www.sybillairwin.com/witness-sketches.html

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by hiflier

[MIB]

Most of the renditions I've seen suggest artist bias.    They start with something they know, some assumptions they've made, then adjust details to match the witness description, but the outcome still heavily reflects those original assumptions.    With such contradictions in depiction obvious, I think all artist renditions are interesting but all must also be taken with a substantial grain of salt.

 

MIB

[1980squatch]

12 hours ago, NatFoot said:

I started a very similar thread within the past year with photos of witness drawings.

 

See if you can find that, it might help.

 

I recall that, checked my post history and:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/64697-for-the-knowers-who-have-seen-them-up-close/

 

[Carnivore]

Thanks for finding the link to that thread 1980squatch. I looked through it and it has some insightful posts in there from people who have seen them. This post from RedBone was intriguing as well:

 

Quote

 

Well since the John Green database was brought up, here are some numbers.

 

Of the reports that mention Nose:

54 Large Flat Nose

23 Small Nose

16 Human Like Nose

1 Prominent nose

 

For reports that mention Face Appearance:

102 Apelike

73 Humanlike

22 Monkeylike

4 Catlike

1 Bearlike

 

It makes me wonder about the potential mental, physical, and behavioral differences between bigfoots that display these varying characteristics. For example, many descriptions of bigfoot in the southern U.S. describe a smaller and more aggressive apelike being in comparison to descriptions of those found further north. 

[Catmandoo]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

Most of the renditions I've seen suggest artist bias.    They start with something they know, some assumptions they've made, then adjust details to match the witness description, but the outcome still heavily reflects those original assumptions.    With such contradictions in depiction obvious, I think all artist renditions are interesting but all must also be taken with a substantial grain of salt.

 

MIB

 

Requires salt licks. Several of them. Natfoot started a thread earlier in the year. The 7th post has 3 frames with images. First 2 are Patty. The frame on the right is not Patty but an image that has been categorized as 'computer art', 'computer air brushing'. The cartoon image was created by artist Peter Travers. It is repeatedly displayed without copyright / artist name. It is a cartoon character, it is not Patty. It gets funny. Forensic artist Harvey Pratt removes facial hair from cartoon Patty.  So why not remove facial hair from Rolf Wolf, Sam Sheepdog and Yosemite Sam. ( Elmer Fudd is OK so Hunster is safe ). I am aware of Harvey Pratt.  A name game with a forensic artist does not legitimize a cartoon face / head shot as real.  If you think that 'cartoon Patty look back' is real, you are in trouble.

 

Persons who have images are concerned with copyright issues and keeping the crazies away.......not necessarily in that order.

 

Some time ago. I contacted a forum member who I believe has a correct 'look back' image of Patty. I have not seen it posted yet.

[norseman]

23 hours ago, Carnivore said:

Over the years I've seen many different illustrations/digital re-creations of bigfoots that are generally based on witness reports. However, something I've always wondered is how accurate those depictions are in regards to what they actually may look like. Particularly, I've wondered about the face being that some depictions will show something that is more humanlike, while others are a more apelike appearance. I was wondering if the people on here who have had their own sightings (and saw the face well enough) have any images in mind that they could share where the illustration is an exact match or very close to what they saw. 

 

No artist rendition needed.

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

No artist rendition needed.

 

I think that's the image that's not actually a real capture from the footage, right?

[norseman]

Not that I’m aware of.

[Doug]

On 8/9/2019 at 7:36 PM, NatFoot said:

 

I think that's the image that's not actually a real capture from the footage, right?

 

You would be correct. It had "work" done to it. I read about how it was done and why it was done as well as who did it. It was a while back and I don't remember the particulars of it because I didn't really care at the time. However, I do remember that the film was "worked on" something like lips were added to the mouth and hand work was done or something to do with the thumb among others and this still shot is part of the altered film.

[RedHawk454]

Some of the forensic sketches by Harvey pretty are interesting, but come across as too human looking.  There’s some sketches in BIGFOOT: west coast wild man that are very interesting, and freaky too.

[hiflier]

9 hours ago, Doug said:

 

You would be correct. It had "work" done to it. I read about how it was done and why it was done as well as who did it. It was a while back and I don't remember the particulars of it because I didn't really care at the time. However, I do remember that the film was "worked on" something like lips were added to the mouth and hand work was done or something to do with the thumb among others and this still shot is part of the altered film.

 

Nothing was "added" to the film. There were enhancements done to better show what was already there.

Edited August 11, 2019 by hiflier