I’m currently reading through one of my favourite childhood books, the mid-1980’s Reader’s Digest ‘Mysteries of the Unexplained’. Ten year old me couldn’t have foreseen that almost 30 years later she would be able to check this wonderful thing called ‘the internet’ for more information on the stories, and usually mundane but interesting explanations.
From the wikipedia article opinion seems equally divided as to whether it is real or not, all I can say is that if it is a hoax its an extremely well done one. There is some stabilized footage that lets you see more clearly:
That doesn’t really look like just a man in a gorilla suit to me. And if you were going to fake it why go to the extra and unnecessary difficulty of making it female?
At least the concept of Bigfoot actually existing is more plausible than a lot of other such mysteries, even if unlikely.
I was just wondering what people here thought?
btw on a side note its a little concerning that in most of the historical reports the first reaction of people viewing something like that is to shoot at it, even if its doing no harm, one person even described shooting a Bigfoot in the back as it stood unaware at a river bank. Its no wonder that they hide from us, and maybe that’s why there’s been no recent sightings, they’ve all been shot!
Saying “it doesn’t look like a man in a gorilla suit to me” is not really very convincing. I think it looks exactly like a person in a gorilla suit.
All these supposed “mystery animal” videos are only in the tiniest bit interesting if you don’t believe someone would go to significant lengths to fake them. Yet there is mountains of reliable evidence that pranksters make hoax videos.
If you saw a discussion about the flat Earth and half was pro and half was anti would you conclude the evidence was equally divided? Of course not!
It’s a hoax, plain and simple. And so clearly a hoax who wants to waste time arguing about it? It’s the “true believers” that go on and on. Glurge does not equal the truth.
With the Patterson film, if ever the phrase “consider the source” rings true, this is it.
Roger Patterson worked as a rodeo rider and stumbled around from place to place and also had the reputation as a bit of a hustler. He decided to make a hunt-for-bigfoot style documentary and knew he needed a money shot. I recall he had an acquaintance who had access to a gorilla-monster suit. Those factors put together cast enough of a skeptic’s light on the entire production to dismiss things outright.
I wish I could provide a stronger cite but the above is what I recall from a book written on the subject some years ago. I could poke around on line but I’m not going to. Too lazy.
Bob Hieronimus says he was the man in the costume, and that Patterson owed him $1000. I see no reason to disbelieve him. That’s more likely than a Gigantepithecus roaming the words of northern California.
I’ve seen experts say that there is no way a person could walk like that in a suit. Just like I’ve seen experts say that crop circles were too coxplex to be made by humans. It is easy to find experts to claim that something is impossible to fake. They are often the ones falling for the fakes made by people more clever than they are.
The hoaxers do not need to be clever than the “experts.”
The “experts” just need to be arrogant enough to belive they cannot be fooled. From what I have seen over the years and really well-educated “expert” can come up with excuses and explanations that the hoaxers never dreamed possible.
Never believed it to be real. To me the motion doesn’t look human or animal; it always looked like a man trying to imitate the motion of an animal. Imagine a couple frat brothers trying to play monkey in the yard. Someone made a really good costume but to me that is what it always was.
Surely this issue is dwarfed (so to speak) by the controversy over the plural of Bigfoot. I recall that a poster recently made a compelling case for one Bigfoot, two Bigfeet.
Yes, those are the type of things I’m talking about by “experts” claiming that there are details in the film that can’t be faked, like the “expert” who proved that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan and their airplane were in that photo recently, and the “experts” who prove that there are details in crop circles that are too complex to have been made by pranksters.
Are you going by the word of “bigfoot experts”, or are you a qualified expert in those areas that has examined the footage yourself and reached that conclusion?
Also, if you look closely, in the background among the trees there are several dozing sheeple that never wake up through the entire clip, even as the Bigfoot passes a few feet away flexing her muscles and swinging her superhuman arms from all joints.
In the book The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker talks about how taking a word with irregular plurals or past tenses or whatever, and exporting that into another context or compound word, becomes regular. An example is in baseball, a player can “fly out,” meaning hitting a fly ball that results in an out. The past tense is “flied out.”
So going by that and how humans usually to this, it should be Bigfoots.
