Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film - Sasquatch or hoax?

[kitakaze]

The following is the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film showing what is either an undiscovered bipedal primate walking along a creek bed in Bluff Creek, California or a man in a suit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-8FeEEo-8

I'm interested in asking members, particularly those with training in physical anthropology and/or anatomy, their opinions on the subject of the film.

1) Do you think the film looks realistic or like a man in a suit?

2) Do you think the subject has normal proportions or proportions explainable by a man in a suit or anything that would qualify as inhuman proportions?

The following graphic was made to demonstrate that the subject has an inhumanly long humerus...





The following gif purports to show a bulging calf muscle...





This shows a bending hand which is said to be impossible without mechanical hand extensions...



This is supposed to demonstrate a moving brow not possible with a mask...



The following is a paper by Jeff Meldrum, Professor of Anthropology at Idaho State University, and retired effects makeup artist Bill Munns making the argument that the subject is real and shows adipose tissue not possible with a man in a suit...

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20...al%20draft.pdf

I am not intending a debate on the existence of Bigfoot, only looking for opinions on the film subject from an anthropological/anatomical perspective.

[Delta1212]

The problem here? That could be a bulging calf... or it could be a wrinkle in a suit. That could be a bend in the hand... or an ill-fitting glove. That could be a moving brow... or an artifact of the low resolution footage.

[slyrat]

The problem here? That could be a bulging calf... or it could be a wrinkle in a suit. That could be a bend in the hand... or an ill-fitting glove. That could be a moving brow... or an artifact of the low resolution footage.

I agree totally, especially with that last statement. The low resolution prevents a real study of the film. any small discrepancies are smeared out. your picture comparisons are interesting, but not helpful. You are using them to compare a smear to a relatively high resolution image and asking if they are similar or dissimilar.

I have no problem believing that a society of large hominids can exist and thrive in forested areas. I also believe that they could never do that in an area as heavily populated as our nation and leave not one verifiable trace of themselves. even lightly populated areas, such as the pacific northwest forests, have enormous amounts of visitors tramping all through them. Any large hominid shy enough to stay hidden at all costs must surely have died of a nervous condition by now! fuzzy movies and footprints are all the proof that exists, and both can be and have been faked. Any hair claimed to be "sasquatch" and submitted for testing has tested out to be plain animal hair- goat, dog, bear, etc. We have found not one bone, carcass, or tooth that belongs to a non-human hominid living in North America.

People have always had human shaped bogeymen they tell stories about- fairies, elves,rakshas,djinn,tokoloshe, etc. We do it today when people "encounter" aliens, all of whom are humanoid. The idea that any "special" and intelligent creature must be humanoid appears to be rooted deeply in us.

If I were you, I would just file the film under "wishful thinking" and move on. It can't be used to prove or disprove anything.

[Keeky]

I’ve seen a lot of believers claiming very small details can be gleaned from the PGf. The latest I’ve seen is: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns%20&%20Meldrum%20Commentary_2013.pdf .

 

I find it hard to believe that such details can be reliable gleaned from the footage. Having said that, I know that I’m not an expert, so I’m wondering if there are any scientifically sound studies on just how much/little can be reliably taken from the footage?

 

Or if anyone has a refutation to the points raised in the above article, that would be useful too.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Keeky

[arc]

I find it hard to believe that such details can be reliable gleaned from the footage. Having said that, I know that I’m not an expert, so I’m wondering if there are any scientifically sound studies on just how much/little can be reliably taken from the footage?

 

I find it rather interesting that a certain mindset that sees this footage as authentic will undoubtedly in turn claim that legitimate documentation of events such as the NASA Apollo moon landings are fake. There is a predictable pattern of behavior of those involved in so much of this pseudo/scientific genre.

 

 

 

Edit, needed some improvement.

Edited August 22, 2014 by arc

[Phi for All]

I find it hard to believe that such details can be reliable gleaned from the footage. Having said that, I know that I’m not an expert, so I’m wondering if there are any scientifically sound studies on just how much/little can be reliably taken from the footage?

 

I don't think anything reliable can be taken from the footage at all. It's questionable evidence at best, given absolutely nothing else physical to corroborate it. And since it very well could be faked....

 

We're just too good at finding patterns, and ignoring how many times the patterns fail to fit for each time they do. How many other details can't be seen that should be seen if this isn't a suit? Are we latching onto a calf muscle when other muscles should certainly be present?

[pzkpfw]

For a species to live, you need a certain number of them. They need to breed, and not inbreed.

 

Take the loch ness "monster" - if there were just one, what is it? Immortal? And if it breeds how could it be so seldom seen?

 

Same thing with bigfoot. There can't just be one, there'd have to be a population. So why so few sightings - especially now with so many cameras going out into the wilderness.

 

Once in a while a species thought extinct is re-found, or an entirely new species is discovered, showing that animals can be "undetected". But these tend to be small, and found in largely unvisited places. Given the folk actively searching for bigfoot etc. - I don't buy their existence at all.

 

On the OP, I'd go with - those are some very strong claims made on weak evidence. Some pretty significant further evidence would need to be found to back them up.

[Ten oz]

For a species to live, you need a certain number of them. They need to breed, and not inbreed.

 

Take the loch ness "monster" - if there were just one, what is it? Immortal? And if it breeds how could it be so seldom seen?

 

Same thing with bigfoot. There can't just be one, there'd have to be a population. So why so few sightings - especially now with so many cameras going out into the wilderness.

 

Once in a while a species thought extinct is re-found, or an entirely new species is discovered, showing that animals can be "undetected". But these tend to be small, and found in largely unvisited places. Given the folk actively searching for bigfoot etc. - I don't buy their existence at all.

 

On the OP, I'd go with - those are some very strong claims made on weak evidence. Some pretty significant further evidence would need to be found to back them up.

Lots of Camera do go out into the wilderness but mostly to well hiked areas. Seldom does a human travel on foot more than 20-30 miles into wilderness. Doing so requires survival gear and supplies that become exponentially heavier the further a person is looking to hike. It is much easier and safer to stay within several miles of towns so you can hike to them for supplies. So even adventure hikers than tackle enormous hikes like the Pacific Crest Trail are seldom further than a several miles from some sort of civilization and are primilary traveling on set trails ment for humans. So assuming Bigfoot is purposely avoiding humans it is not incredible to believe it would be able to. From the Sierra's to the Rockies there are huge ranges of wilderness that are not travest by more than a hand full of people. So theoritically there could be enough of them to reproduce without inbreeding.

 

It also isn't difficult to believe Bigfoot would go out of its way to avoid humans at all costs. Truly any intelligent animal should all things considered. Any trail with human scent, cabin in the woods, cleared road would be avoided. That would make ever seeing one difficult.

 

All of that said I do not believe in Bigfoot. As many have already pointed out evidence like the video in the OP are too poor in quality to concluded anything from. I also think that if there were a Bigfoot there would be some arculogical evidence. Surely humans have moved into areas once home to Bigfoot. So I think we would've dug up a skelton or some teeth by now.

[pzkpfw]

I guess it's true (from what I've seen on satellite T.V.) that "professional bigfoot hunters" have to stay near shops where they can buy bacon to hang from trees.