new bigfoot footage?

[Ben Gruagach]

I saw this cool news article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050420/BIGFOOT20/TPNational/Canada) today.

Apparently some people in Manitoba have video footage they took recently of what they believe is a bigfoot. The footage hasn't been shown on TV yet, but it could be interesting.

[Nighthawk]

I would sure like to see it.

[Gwenhwyfar]

I want to see it to, I wonder when they'll show it...

[Valnorran]

As a longtime bigfoot enthusiast, I've learned not to get too excited or expect much. Most film footage is outright crap. The Patterson Film, shot in 1967, remains the best. One thing that article said that bugged me was something about anthropologists rejecting the Patterson film because the subject is within the limits for human size. This isn't entirely accurate. It's within the limits of human height, but not total mass. If you get a chance, look at pictures that compare the subject in the Patterson film to a human of the same height. The height's the same, but the Patterson subject is so much more massive than even an NFL player that I have a hard time believing it's a man in a suit.

[Laisrean]

As a longtime bigfoot enthusiast, I've learned not to get too excited or expect much. Most film footage is outright crap. The Patterson Film, shot in 1967, remains the best. One thing that article said that bugged me was something about anthropologists rejecting the Patterson film because the subject is within the limits for human size. This isn't entirely accurate. It's within the limits of human height, but not total mass. If you get a chance, look at pictures that compare the subject in the Patterson film to a human of the same height. The height's the same, but the Patterson subject is so much more massive than even an NFL player that I have a hard time believing it's a man in a suit.

And even if it may have been within the range of human sizes doesn't prove it wasn't a bigfoot. The creature in the Patterson film was a female, and just as is the case with humans one would assume the females of their species are of shorter stature than the males... Plus it may have been an adolescent. So if it was 6'5 and that is within the size of some humans, so what?

If the Patterson video is a hoax then it is one of the greatest hoaxes every produced. Even hollywood could not make ape costumes as realistic as the one in the Patterson video (assuming it is a costume, but personally I think it is real). If you've ever seen the planet of the apes movies, that's about all hollywood was capable of doing in those days. For some amateur to do better than hollywood could in those days would be amazing. The animal in the Patterson video has musculature that moves in a realistic way... it doesn't look like a simple rubber costume. I think it is real.

[Valnorran]

I'm inclined to think it's real, but I'm not totally convinced. I'm damned if I can figure out how it could be hoaxed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't hoaxed. It's funny you should mention "Planet of the Apes." The guy who did the costumes for that movie (whose name escapes me at the moment. I'll probably remember immediately after clicking on submit.) has long been a suspect as being party to the Patterson film. At his retirement party he denied it. His stuff was good for that day and age, but still way short of the realistic details of the Patterson footage.

[Laisrean]

Yeah, I know of the man you are talking about but don't remember his name. If he were capable of creating such a convincing hoax as the Patterson film, why then didn't he use his talents on making the apes in the planet of the apes more realistic?

Such a film might be able to be hoaxed today with computer animation and animatronics, but I very much doubt it could have been hoaxed in the late 60s. That is why I am inclined to think that particular film is genuine.

[LadyTrinity]

I've seen an alien before. A big foot would not phase me :shaker:

[Druchii]

I'm inclined to think it's real, but I'm not totally convinced. I'm damned if I can figure out how it could be hoaxed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't hoaxed. It's funny you should mention "Planet of the Apes." The guy who did the costumes for that movie (whose name escapes me at the moment. I'll probably remember immediately after clicking on submit.) has long been a suspect as being party to the Patterson film. At his retirement party he denied it. His stuff was good for that day and age, but still way short of the realistic details of the Patterson footage.


You are talking about the old ones right? Because Rick Baker supervised the make-up effects for the new one, and as far as "monkey" effects he is BAR NONE the best in the industry. The guy you are thinking of is Jack Barron. Even then, he was never able to have access to the gelatin molds that Rick Baker and many others will use for facial and detail finessing areas. :)


And although not connected, evidently in 1967 there was a ufo sighting there... http://archives.cbc.ca/400d.asp?id=1-69-725-4343 :)

[melantha rose]

I'd love to see the footage. I hope they show it soon. I am also a lifelong studier of Sasquatch. To this day, even though now it looks old and outdated, "The Legend of Boggy Creek", made back in the '70's, is still one of my favorites. For those of you who haven't heard of it, it is a documentary style movie about a Bigfoot type creature that roamed the woods of South Arkansas back in the 1940's. It's worth a watch if you believe Bigfoot is real, and it's still freaks me out. I guess not everybody would like it, but I sure do.

[Valnorran]

You are talking about the old ones right? Because Rick Baker supervised the make-up effects for the new one, and as far as "monkey" effects he is BAR NONE the best in the industry. The guy you are thinking of is Jack Barron. Even then, he was never able to have access to the gelatin molds that Rick Baker and many others will use for facial and detail finessing areas. :)
Yeah, I'm talking about the original Planet of the Apes, with Charelton Heston. The guy I'm thinking of is John Chambers.

[Ben Gruagach]

Here's an update on the story (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/05/03/1023271-sun.html): the footage was purchased by a US media outlet, and it is going to be broadcast on Wednesday May 4 2005 in the TV show "A Current Affair."

I'm going to see if I can catch it when it's on.

[Valnorran]

Another update.
http://bfro.net/news/manitoba_footage.asp

[Ben Gruagach]

Another update.
http://bfro.net/news/manitoba_footage.asp

Thanks for that link -- for those who haven't seen it, it's got links to lots of other articles about this specific footage.

[enchancea]

Cant wait to see it

[Ben Gruagach]

I saw a tiny clip of the video they included in the promo in last night's show for the Bigfoot episode that plays tonight. I have to say I was really disappointed -- I really hope that what the rest of the clip includes is clearer than what they showed in the promo.

The promo clip looked like a person who was wearing dark clothes and a black toque (knitted cap) being videotaped from really far away with so much digital zooming used that they were blurry. But if the rest of the clip is clearer it might be more convincing.

[Valnorran]

According the the review given by the Bigfoot Field Reasearch Organization, it doesn't get any better. It's what some on-lin bigfoot enthusiasts call a bobsquatch, a blob in a photo that's supposed to be a sasquatch. The bobsquatches vastly outnumber the reasonably good photos, and most of the really good photos are hoaxes. Unfortunately, the world in general (and the scientific world in particular) won't be satisfied with anything less than a body or a substantial portion of one.

[whitewater]

i read a couple of years ago that two guys admitted that Bigfoot was a hoax. i dunno, i could just be insane...

[Valnorran]

i read a couple of years ago that two guys admitted that Bigfoot was a hoax. i dunno, i could just be insane...
Several people claim they were in on hoaxing the Patterson-Gimlin film. None of them has produced any credible evidence. Some footprints are undoubtedly hoaxed. Others have convince fingerprint expert Jim Chillcutt that the prints were made by an unknown primate.